Cord Cutters Finally Having an impact

[Blackjack200]

If I start paying $10.00 or so for ESPN, HBO, Showtime, Netflix, Amazon, etc. then I'm back up to the $150.00 that I used to pay Comcast...................no. And they ruined Monday Night Football for me, haven't watched that since they've moved it so F'em.

It seems like everybody despises these cable companies, but most just accepted them because there wasn't much competition. I think that's what the cable providers and ESPN are struggling with. People just have a lot more entertainment options now.

Even if they haven't been waiting for their chance to stick it to the cable companies, they watch their Netflix, House of Cards, Youtube, surf the web, turn around and they only watched a few things on cable last month, and they get a bill for > $100. Suddenly it becomes very hard to justify.

 

[PliotronX]

For the love of fuck, please don't have them go solo like HBO/Showtime are doing with their bullshit $15/month to stream them.

Seriously. $15/month to stream O-N-E channel. Get the fuck out of here. As much as a 'la carte is the prefered system, we want it ALL UNDER ONE SYSTEM. I don't want to have to go on my PS3 and go to the "Netflix" app, load Netflix, login, see if anything good is on... Nothing good on, let's go to the Showtime app and see if anything good is on there. Nope. Nothing good there. Let's load the ESPN app and see if anything good is on there....

I was very happy when they joined the Dish SlingTV - it showed progress for unbundling all the crap channels. I think that is part of the problem with cable companies - THEY are the ones that need to cut costs. You don't have enough viewers that watch cooking channels and crap to justify its existence. It's stupid. It's a waste. Get rid of it and replace the "All-day cooking channel" with a cooking show or two on a local channel.

I cut the cord quite a while ago, haven't looked back - and I haven't signed up for some stupid streaming service yet either.

At first it does seem more pricey however, I don't know how much cable subscriptions run in your neck of the woods but if you total up the good stuff like NF, Hulu, HBO, etc., it'll still be cheaper with just a broadband connection. Cable is a dying model.

 

[preslove]

And to just ROFL at this entire situation, we have.....http://www.ibtimes.com/bernie-sande...-cable-tv-bill-too-high-they-want-fcc-2003592

Now I wonder how it is possible that bills got so high, could it be perhaps that the government allowed the OTA channels to begin the arm and leg process of charging rebroadcast fees such that now the main networks are more interested in cable subscriber revenue than traditional ad fees. Nope, couldn't possibly what happened.

WTF are you talking about? You are completely off base. It's network bundling that is causing the ballooning prices, not the low carriage fees of 4 OTA channels.

Carriage fees are far higher for espn than OTA channels, and Disney forces cable companies not just to pay $6.50 per subscriber for ESPN, but also to pay for the Disney channel, ABC, A&E, History and a few others. Oh, and if you don't include ESPN and ALL of the channels in it's "bundle" in the standard cable package, well you can't have ESPN at any price. Turner television, Viacom and a few others do this, too. This is the main driver of cable price inflation.

 

[natto fire]

Weird. I was told on this forum by AT experts that cord cutting would have zero impact on day to day operations of pay TV corporations.

I know a degree from Armchair University (go Stuffins!) is about as real as it gets around here, but was I possibly lied to? My anecdotal evidence of close friends that don't have these services are clashing with what random people on the internet are saying, and I just don't know what to do.

 

[Fritzo]

I've often predicted that sports in general is going to implode on itself within the next decade due to the ridiculous and over-reaching salaries and cost of broadcasting.

 

[lupi]

WTF are you talking about? You are completely off base. It's network bundling that is causing the ballooning prices, not the low carriage fees of 4 OTA channels.

Carriage fees are far higher for espn than OTA channels, and Disney forces cable companies not just to pay $6.50 per subscriber for ESPN, but also to pay for the Disney channel, ABC, A&E, History and a few others. Oh, and if you don't include ESPN and ALL of the channels in it's "bundle" in the standard cable package, well you can't have ESPN at any price. Turner television, Viacom and a few others do this, too. This is the main driver of cable price inflation.

http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/75641/cbs-targets-gray-for-hefty-comp-raise

 

[Gibsons]

ESPN is paying a ton for rights - NFL, NBA, CFB, etc. That gets passed along to consumers eventually. 'course, they also sell ads.

In any case, it looks like they're cutting higher priced talent - Simmons and Olberman are gone, Cowturd maybe.

 

[Nebor]

So I've got Netflix, Hulu Plus, and Amazon Prime, along with HBO NOW. Is there any way for me to get FX without a cable subscription? That's really my only other must have channel.

 

[Jeff7]

Maybe they've got just a little bit of bloat that they could shed.

 

[DesiPower]

Good, its just sports, if not one channel, then another will show. All major sports events should be available on OTA.

 

[zerocool84]

Good. Fuck ESPN and their tearing away of games that used to be available OTA. That includes Monday night football and as of this year NFL playoff games. I hope people wise up to the college sports network channels to and give them the finger. Local games that used to be locally televised on OTA channels now got sucked into Big 10 & SEC networks. It's a horrible trend.

Voting with your wallet is the only way that this stuff is going to get better.

Don't blame ESPN, blame the people that own those sports. They are the ones that allowed it to happen.

 

[smackababy]

Steward Scott, like Nirvana and rock bands, was the last great sports caster. ESPN has nothing the replace him.

 

[Murloc]

Don't blame ESPN, blame the people that own those sports. They are the ones that allowed it to happen.

well they only look for max profits.

In my country the public broadcasters do transmit the national teams, the national leagues and the international matches involving at least one locally-relevant club OTA.
But I guess in the US spectator sports are more important and have a bigger public so it costs much more.

Still, I find it hard to believe that they've eaten up even the lower tiers.

 

[lxskllr]

You don't have enough viewers that watch cooking channels and crap to justify its existence. It's stupid. It's a waste. Get rid of it and replace the "All-day cooking channel" with a cooking show or two on a local channel.

That's what youtube is for. You can have any crazy niche you can dream up, and the users(if any) can support you.

 

[Ichinisan]

I think that is part of the problem with cable companies - THEY are the ones that need to cut costs. You don't have enough viewers that watch cooking channels and crap to justify its existence. It's stupid. It's a waste. Get rid of it and replace the "All-day cooking channel" with a cooking show or two on a local channel.

They don't have a lot of flexibility there. Media conglomerates like Viacom / NBC / Turner own most of the channels and they force cable/satellite companies to carry the crap channels in order to carry the good channels people actually demand. They even force them to place the channels on specific tiers.

When negotiations get serious, Viacom / others run ads that extort the cable / satellite company. Like a full-page ad with Dora the Explorer saying "___ doesn't want us to play together anymore " and people are encouraged to call their pay TV provider and demand they keep carrying ____, even though that means increased rates and being forced to pay for more crap channels you don't want.

People are stupid. Every time this crap happens, they attack their cable/satellite company on social media and call to yell at a poor CSR -- but the cable/satellite companies are trying to keep the prices reasonable. Then the inevitable price increase comes and they hate on their pay TV providers for that. It's like they don't see the connection or they have amnesia.

 

[Jumpem]

ESPN needs to be a premium channel. There is no reason to add an extra six dollars a month to people's bills when maybe a quarter of subscribers watch it.

 

[Jumpem]

They don't have a lot of flexibility there. Media conglomerates like Viacom / NBC / Turner own most of the channels and they force cable/satellite companies to carry the crap channels in order to carry the good channels people actually demand. They even force them to place the channels on specific tiers.

When negotiations get serious, Viacom / others run ads that extort the cable / satellite company. Like a full-page ad with Dora the Explorer saying "___ doesn't want us to play together anymore " and people are encouraged to call their pay TV provider and demand they keep carrying ____, even though that means increased rates and being forced to pay for more crap channels you don't want.

People are stupid. Every time this crap happens, they attack their cable/satellite company on social media and call to yell at a poor CSR -- but the cable/satellite companies are trying to keep the prices reasonable. Then the inevitable price increase comes and they hate on their pay TV providers for that. It's like they don't see the connection or they have amnesia.

I would rather my bill go up than channels get touched. I am still upset that FiOS dropped the Weather channel months ago.

 

[Ichinisan]

I would rather my bill go up than channels get touched. I am still upset that FiOS dropped the Weather channel months ago.

And there you see the problem: I don't watch that channel. Ever. But They would demand higher and higher per-subscriber rates from my TV provider, and I would be forced to pay more and more for a channel I don't watch. When it reaches a tipping point, I'd be forced to dump subscription TV altogether.

If The Weather Channel was owned by the same conglomerate that owns Nickelodeon / MTV / Comedy Central, the rights for those channels would be used to extort the TV service provider to keep paying the increased rates for The Weather Channel and they wouldn't be able to do anything about it.

 

[BUTCH1]

Good. Fuck ESPN and their tearing away of games that used to be available OTA. That includes Monday night football and as of this year NFL playoff games. I hope people wise up to the college sports network channels to and give them the finger. Local games that used to be locally televised on OTA channels now got sucked into Big 10 & SEC networks. It's a horrible trend.

Voting with your wallet is the only way that this stuff is going to get better.

I was shocked to read this from the article,

"ESPN, though ubiquitous in most US homes, is actually an extremely expensive channel for your cable provider to bring to you. According to a Wall Street Journal report from August 2014, ESPN costs about $6.04 per person for a cable provider."

That's just nuts, no wonder "basic" cable packages run around $100/mth these days.

 

[BUTCH1]

And there you see the problem: I don't watch that channel. Ever. But They would demand higher and higher per-subscriber rates from my TV provider, and I would be forced to pay more and more for a channel I don't watch. When it reaches a tipping point, I'd be forced to dump subscription TV altogether.

If The Weather Channel was owned by the same conglomerate that owns Nickelodeon / MTV / Comedy Central, the rights for those channels would be used to extort the TV service provider to keep paying the increased rates for The Weather Channel and they wouldn't be able to do anything about it.

What REALLY sucks is the fact that cable and satellite providers refuse to offer "ala-carte' options and instead force viewers to buy " packages" containing channels they do not want and will never watch. I guess we should expect the Louisville slugger up the ass since cable Co's have paid off those who make the regulations.

 

[Jumpem]

And there you see the problem: I don't watch that channel. Ever. But They would demand higher and higher per-subscriber rates from my TV provider, and I would be forced to pay more and more for a channel I don't watch. When it reaches a tipping point, I'd be forced to dump subscription TV altogether.

If The Weather Channel was owned by the same conglomerate that owns Nickelodeon / MTV / Comedy Central, the rights for those channels would be used to extort the TV service provider to keep paying the increased rates for The Weather Channel and they wouldn't be able to do anything about it.

I understand the problem. I pay for hundreds of channels that I don't watch. But until (if ever) we are able to pick and choose on a per-channel basis it is what we are stuck with.

I like having choices and the availability watch anything interesting though so I have every premium channel, Netflix streaming, and Netflix Blu-ray.

 

[Jumpem]

What REALLY sucks is the fact that cable and satellite providers refuse to offer "ala-carte' options and instead force viewers to buy " packages" containing channels they do not want and will never watch. I guess we should expect the Louisville slugger up the ass since cable Co's have paid off those who make the regulations.

To be fair, it isn't the cable and satellite companies forcing the packages. It is the content providers that force them to provide all of their channels if they want to carry the popular one.

Look at the lawsuits against Verizon from content providers for their Custom TV option where you can pick among different channels packages to add.

 

[Mixolydian]

I would rather my bill go up than channels get touched. I am still upset that FiOS dropped the Weather channel months ago.

You do realize that The Weather Channel has virtually nothing to do with weather anymore, right?

Besides, doesn't FiOS have WeatherScan?

 

[Ichinisan]

What REALLY sucks is the fact that cable and satellite providers refuse to offer "ala-carte' options and instead force viewers to buy " packages" containing channels they do not want and will never watch. I guess we should expect the Louisville slugger up the ass since cable Co's have paid off those who make the regulations.

TV service providers would absolutely love to offer a la carte. Lots of people would pay for subscription TV that currently can't afford it.

Media conglomerates are the ones holding up any sort of a la carte transition. Service providers have tried to separate channels into their own packages to minimize the impact of per-subscriber price increases, and then the conglomerates gouge them on the must-carry channels. In negotiations, they basically get to say: "You'll carry these new channels nobody wants, pay $x.xx per-subscriber, place it in this specific service tier. Otherwise, we won't let you carry this other channel that most of your customers demand -- or maybe we will jack the per-subscriber rate waaaay up."

 

[Thump553]

ESPN needs to be a premium channel. There is no reason to add an extra six dollars a month to people's bills when maybe a quarter of subscribers watch it.

Exactly. The only time ESPN is on in our home is when a visitor is watching it. I get sick when I think how much money I've wasted paying ESPN over the years but OTA is hopeless here and Comcast doesn't allow breaking up their bundles. Too bad antitrust laws are either toothless and/or not enforced anymore.