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

Rate increases coming, could be worse


  • Please log in to reply
133 replies to this topic

#26 OFFLINE   kevinturcotte

kevinturcotte

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,942 posts
  • LocationOutside Portland, ME
Joined: Dec 19, 2006

Posted 12 September 2012 - 12:35 AM

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

...Ads Help To Support This Site...

#27 OFFLINE   thomas_d92

thomas_d92

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 85 posts
Joined: Nov 29, 2004

Posted 12 September 2012 - 04:56 AM

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.

#28 OFFLINE   Carl Spock

Carl Spock

    Superfly

  • Registered
  • 4,567 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2004

Posted 12 September 2012 - 05:32 AM

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.
hangin' with the bros at 40 Eridani A

#29 OFFLINE   Mike Greer

Mike Greer

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,612 posts
  • LocationSalt Lake City, Utah
Joined: Jan 20, 2004

Posted 12 September 2012 - 06:07 AM

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… 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… 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.

#30 OFFLINE   WebTraveler

WebTraveler

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 1,089 posts
Joined: Apr 09, 2006

Posted 12 September 2012 - 06:21 AM

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...

#31 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,617 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2007

Posted 12 September 2012 - 07:11 AM

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.
DTV = Digital Television

#32 OFFLINE   Satelliteracer

Satelliteracer

    Hall Of Fame

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

Posted 12 September 2012 - 08:17 AM

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… 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… 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.


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.fina...-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.
DIRECTV employee

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

#33 OFFLINE   Mike Greer

Mike Greer

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,612 posts
  • LocationSalt Lake City, Utah
Joined: Jan 20, 2004

Posted 12 September 2012 - 08:44 AM

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.fina...-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.


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'.

#34 OFFLINE   ronsanjim

ronsanjim

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 417 posts
  • LocationCherokee Village, AR
Joined: Mar 18, 2008

Posted 12 September 2012 - 10:07 AM

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.

#35 OFFLINE   PrinceLH

PrinceLH

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 473 posts
Joined: Feb 18, 2003

Posted 12 September 2012 - 11:01 AM

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.

#36 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 17,683 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 12 September 2012 - 09:23 PM

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'.


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.

#37 OFFLINE   Diana C

Diana C

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 2,099 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey
Joined: Mar 30, 2007

Posted 13 September 2012 - 07:06 AM

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.

Dish Network Customer from 9/1998-11/2001
DirecTV Customer 10/2001 - 7/2014

FiOS TV/TiVo Customer since 6/2014
Moderator, DBSDish.com 1999-2000
Co-Founder and Administrator, DBSForums.com 2000-2006

Current setup:
DirecTV: HR34-700 (1TB) / HR24-100 (1TB) / HR24-500 (1TB) / HR21-700 (320GB) / HR21-100 (1TB) / 2 H25s / C41-500 / SWiM16 / Nomad / CCK

FiOS: 2 Tivo Roamio Pros (6 TB total) / 5 Tivo Minis attached via MOCA


#38 OFFLINE   TheRatPatrol

TheRatPatrol

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,919 posts
  • LocationPhoenix, AZ
Joined: Oct 01, 2003

Posted 13 September 2012 - 07:10 AM

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

#39 OFFLINE   APB101

APB101

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 1,039 posts
  • LocationMichigan
Joined: Sep 01, 2010

Posted 13 September 2012 - 07:22 AM

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.

#40 OFFLINE   Carl Spock

Carl Spock

    Superfly

  • Registered
  • 4,567 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2004

Posted 13 September 2012 - 07:24 AM

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.


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?
hangin' with the bros at 40 Eridani A

#41 OFFLINE   lokar

lokar

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 724 posts
Joined: Oct 07, 2006

Posted 13 September 2012 - 10:51 AM

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.

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.

Edited by lokar, 13 September 2012 - 11:05 AM.


#42 OFFLINE   Diana C

Diana C

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 2,099 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey
Joined: Mar 30, 2007

Posted 13 September 2012 - 11:05 AM

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.

Dish Network Customer from 9/1998-11/2001
DirecTV Customer 10/2001 - 7/2014

FiOS TV/TiVo Customer since 6/2014
Moderator, DBSDish.com 1999-2000
Co-Founder and Administrator, DBSForums.com 2000-2006

Current setup:
DirecTV: HR34-700 (1TB) / HR24-100 (1TB) / HR24-500 (1TB) / HR21-700 (320GB) / HR21-100 (1TB) / 2 H25s / C41-500 / SWiM16 / Nomad / CCK

FiOS: 2 Tivo Roamio Pros (6 TB total) / 5 Tivo Minis attached via MOCA


#43 OFFLINE   Diana C

Diana C

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 2,099 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey
Joined: Mar 30, 2007

Posted 13 September 2012 - 11:30 AM

..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.

Edited by Diana C, 13 September 2012 - 01:31 PM.
Corrected my math

Dish Network Customer from 9/1998-11/2001
DirecTV Customer 10/2001 - 7/2014

FiOS TV/TiVo Customer since 6/2014
Moderator, DBSDish.com 1999-2000
Co-Founder and Administrator, DBSForums.com 2000-2006

Current setup:
DirecTV: HR34-700 (1TB) / HR24-100 (1TB) / HR24-500 (1TB) / HR21-700 (320GB) / HR21-100 (1TB) / 2 H25s / C41-500 / SWiM16 / Nomad / CCK

FiOS: 2 Tivo Roamio Pros (6 TB total) / 5 Tivo Minis attached via MOCA


#44 OFFLINE   tomski35

tomski35

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 98 posts
Joined: Sep 07, 2007

Posted 13 September 2012 - 11:36 AM

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.

#45 OFFLINE   mreposter

mreposter

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,710 posts
Joined: Jul 29, 2006

Posted 13 September 2012 - 01:01 PM

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?
..........
.......... There are none so blind as those who can not see it in HD.
.......... Directv customer since January 2000.
..........

#46 OFFLINE   Diana C

Diana C

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 2,099 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey
Joined: Mar 30, 2007

Posted 13 September 2012 - 01:06 PM

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.

Edited by Diana C, 13 September 2012 - 01:16 PM.
Fixed a bunch of typos

Dish Network Customer from 9/1998-11/2001
DirecTV Customer 10/2001 - 7/2014

FiOS TV/TiVo Customer since 6/2014
Moderator, DBSDish.com 1999-2000
Co-Founder and Administrator, DBSForums.com 2000-2006

Current setup:
DirecTV: HR34-700 (1TB) / HR24-100 (1TB) / HR24-500 (1TB) / HR21-700 (320GB) / HR21-100 (1TB) / 2 H25s / C41-500 / SWiM16 / Nomad / CCK

FiOS: 2 Tivo Roamio Pros (6 TB total) / 5 Tivo Minis attached via MOCA


#47 OFFLINE   Diana C

Diana C

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 2,099 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey
Joined: Mar 30, 2007

Posted 13 September 2012 - 01:33 PM

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.

Dish Network Customer from 9/1998-11/2001
DirecTV Customer 10/2001 - 7/2014

FiOS TV/TiVo Customer since 6/2014
Moderator, DBSDish.com 1999-2000
Co-Founder and Administrator, DBSForums.com 2000-2006

Current setup:
DirecTV: HR34-700 (1TB) / HR24-100 (1TB) / HR24-500 (1TB) / HR21-700 (320GB) / HR21-100 (1TB) / 2 H25s / C41-500 / SWiM16 / Nomad / CCK

FiOS: 2 Tivo Roamio Pros (6 TB total) / 5 Tivo Minis attached via MOCA


#48 OFFLINE   wingrider01

wingrider01

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,764 posts
Joined: Sep 09, 2005

Posted 13 September 2012 - 01:35 PM

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?

#49 OFFLINE   celticpride

celticpride

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 969 posts
Joined: Sep 06, 2006

Posted 13 September 2012 - 01:56 PM

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.

#50 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 17,683 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 13 September 2012 - 02:02 PM

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.




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