I agree Sat, so bring on ala carte pricing, carry everything, pay for only what you want and everybody's happy. This is something that sends chills down the spines of the cable and sat carriers, but if given the choice, would be the choice of almost every sub, no matter the carrier.
Sports costs are growing, but rights fees are not just based on sub fees, but reaching the high revenue buyers sought out by advertisers. Sports brings predicatbale ratings to the programming evidenced by the number of primetime football games on almost every night of the week .
We sub to 601 channels on D* and watch maybe 30. I'd pay for what I want if I didn't have to pay for channels I never watch, I'm sure the vast majority of all subs, no matter the carrier, are in the same situation.
Sure, and that ESPN that is going for $4.50 or whatever it is, now it's $10 to $15. Etc, etc. That's the problem with a la carte pricing and why it doesn't work. People in Canada are learning that right now. Yup, they lower their bill because they are only buying what they watch and instead of getting 150 channels for $75 they're getting 20 for $45. A la carte means less choice, far less diversity of offerings, etc, etc. On the sports side, it would basically destroy the leagues revenue system (we can argue whether that is a good or bad thing). Quick example, ESPN just recently spent several billion on Monday Night Football rights. Those dollars go to the league and eventually to the players via the salary cap and each team's chunk of the pie. ESPN bid billions KNOWING what bird they have in hand with X number of millions of subscribers across D*, Dish, Fios, UVerse, Cable, etc because they are penetrated about 90% on all base packages, whether people want ESPN or not.
Now, make ESPN a la carte, the cost goes up to $10 to $15 MINIMUM per month per subscriber to cover those same costs..that is if people are even willing to pay the price.