Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

2.00 Regional Sports Fee?


  • Please log in to reply
207 replies to this topic

#201 OFFLINE   TheRatPatrol

TheRatPatrol

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,801 posts
  • LocationPhoenix, AZ
Joined: Oct 01, 2003

Posted 05 March 2014 - 07:01 AM

If you're talking about the movie studios, they're doing things no differently than in the past but with windowing.  They make money in the DVD window, in the PPV window on tv distributors, then after that on Netflix, etc.  They control the release calendar and charge accordingly.  A movie can't be on PPV and also on HBO at the same time.  Nor can it be on Netflix and on a premium channel, UNLESS the movie is old enough and has gone through all of its windowing parameters.  That windowing allows them to monetize along the life cycle of their product.

This is what I was talking about. Why can't my local teams (and all other sports for that matter) be available on cable or satellite but also be available to me via streaming if I don't want to pay for cable or satellite?

Whats frustrating to me is that I can subscribe to an out of market sports package (without cable or satellite) and get all the games from outside my area but if I want to watch my local teams I'm required to get a cable or satellite subscription. I feel like thats a slap in the face to the local fans, a big F you, sorry charlie, but if you want to watch our games you'll have to get cable or satellite. How is that kind of attitude going to draw in and keep fans?

I guess it really is all about the money, and the heck with fans. Its getting to the point of me not wanting to be a sports fan anymore.

...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#202 OFFLINE   Cyber36

Cyber36

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 274 posts
  • LocationByron NY
Joined: Mar 20, 2008

Posted 05 March 2014 - 08:39 AM

This is what I was talking about. Why can't my local teams (and all other sports for that matter) be available on cable or satellite but also be available to me via streaming if I don't want to pay for cable or satellite?

Whats frustrating to me is that I can subscribe to an out of market sports package (without cable or satellite) and get all the games from outside my area but if I want to watch my local teams I'm required to get a cable or satellite subscription. I feel like thats a slap in the face to the local fans, a big F you, sorry charlie, but if you want to watch our games you'll have to get cable or satellite. How is that kind of attitude going to draw in and keep fans?

I guess it really is all about the money, and the heck with fans. Its getting to the point of me not wanting to be a sports fan anymore.

Amen brother! I'm almost as close as you are......



#203 OFFLINE   MysteryMan

MysteryMan

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 6,906 posts
  • LocationUSA
Joined: May 17, 2010

Posted 05 March 2014 - 08:44 AM

Sports has always been about the money.


DirecTV customer since 1995.


#204 OFFLINE   JoeTheDragon

JoeTheDragon

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,243 posts
Joined: Jul 21, 2008

Posted 05 March 2014 - 09:00 AM

This is what I was talking about. Why can't my local teams (and all other sports for that matter) be available on cable or satellite but also be available to me via streaming if I don't want to pay for cable or satellite?

Whats frustrating to me is that I can subscribe to an out of market sports package (without cable or satellite) and get all the games from outside my area but if I want to watch my local teams I'm required to get a cable or satellite subscription. I feel like thats a slap in the face to the local fans, a big F you, sorry charlie, but if you want to watch our games you'll have to get cable or satellite. How is that kind of attitude going to draw in and keep fans?

I guess it really is all about the money, and the heck with fans. Its getting to the point of me not wanting to be a sports fan anymore.

well if they go premium that due to some old laws then they must let people on cable who have limited basic buy any added premium with out having to buy an main pack of channels So I don't think comcast will be very hot with people who just have limited basic + say $5-$10 mo for there local RSN.


I want CLTV / CLTV HD on direct tv.

#205 OFFLINE   Billzebub

Billzebub

    Godfather

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 592 posts
  • LocationPittsburgh, PA
Joined: Jan 01, 2007

Posted 05 March 2014 - 10:13 AM

What many people seem to forget (or just aren't old enough to know) is that moving RSNs to a premium channel structure is not new. The reason most RSNs don't want to try it is not because they are afraid of change, but because it has been tried before and this way works better ( for the RSNs, not the consumer). In the beginning (longer ago than I care to admit) RSNs were almost all pay channels, even in markets like Pittsburgh. Gradually they realized their programming didn't attract enough income to justify the Investment so they went the commercial driven free channel route.
Ironically, competition is what drives these prices up. Competition in the carrier market, not the RSN market. In the old days, when one cable company served the area without competition from FIOS or a satellite company, if an RSN wanted too much they just weren't carried. What was the RSN going to do, suggest people change carriers to get their channel? There was no other carrier. The choices provided by competition gave the channels a weapon they didn't have before. Now the channels are must carry in basic packages and the price is climbing to what a premium channel gets. Good deal if you can get it. I don't know the answer ( other than cutting the cord and reading a book) but I think we are remiss in ignoring history.


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk

Edited by Billzebub, 05 March 2014 - 02:06 PM.


#206 OFFLINE   capnp72

capnp72

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 24 posts
  • LocationJohnsburg, IL
Joined: Jan 10, 2014

Posted 05 March 2014 - 10:16 AM

The answer is for the carriers to stop paying the outraegous fees that the RSN's are demanding.  If no one is willing to pay the fees that they want to charge, they will change.



#207 OFFLINE   Satelliteracer

Satelliteracer

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,042 posts
Joined: Dec 06, 2006

Posted 05 March 2014 - 01:40 PM

This is what I was talking about. Why can't my local teams (and all other sports for that matter) be available on cable or satellite but also be available to me via streaming if I don't want to pay for cable or satellite?

Whats frustrating to me is that I can subscribe to an out of market sports package (without cable or satellite) and get all the games from outside my area but if I want to watch my local teams I'm required to get a cable or satellite subscription. I feel like thats a slap in the face to the local fans, a big F you, sorry charlie, but if you want to watch our games you'll have to get cable or satellite. How is that kind of attitude going to draw in and keep fans?

I guess it really is all about the money, and the heck with fans. Its getting to the point of me not wanting to be a sports fan anymore.

 

 

I think your question should be asked of the local teams and the local RSN. If it was about the fans, they would put all the games over the air for free....right?  That's my two cents. I suspect they are worried about the fans, but a bit more worried about gaining revenues.  Think of the folks that are diehard fans that watch Dodgers or Lakers games on local broadcasts over the years.  That is gone, you need a subscription.  Whether it has eroded their fanbase at all is up for debate.  If it has, I'm guessing they decided the tradeoff was worth it for the money.  My two cents.


DIRECTV employee

All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views do NOT represent the views of DIRECTV

#208 OFFLINE   Satelliteracer

Satelliteracer

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,042 posts
Joined: Dec 06, 2006

Posted 05 March 2014 - 01:42 PM

The answer is for the carriers to stop paying the outraegous fees that the RSN's are demanding.  If no one is willing to pay the fees that they want to charge, they will change.

 

 

I just linked an article about the Dodgers in the LA Times about this.  You have thousands of Dodgers fans demanding the channel be carried.  Thousands of non Dodger fans saying don't carry it because their rates are going to go up.  Distributors wanting to tier it so only the Dodger fans that want it can pay for it.  RSNs that say no to the tier and demand wide distribution because they want the eyeballs and the subscription fees.


DIRECTV employee

All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views do NOT represent the views of DIRECTV




Protected By... spam firewall...And...