1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Rate increases coming, could be worse

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by ChicagoBlue, Sep 11, 2012.

  1. Sep 14, 2012 #81 of 134
    Diana C

    Diana C Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    2,117
    293
    Mar 30, 2007
    New Jersey
    All I was saying is that the game is not being sold twice because it isn't being sold at all. The viewers are being sold...the local viewers to the local advertisers, the national viewers to the national advertisers.
     
  2. Sep 14, 2012 #82 of 134
    RD in Fla

    RD in Fla Icon

    529
    1
    Aug 26, 2007
  3. Sep 15, 2012 #83 of 134
    Mike Greer

    Mike Greer Hall Of Fame

    1,612
    15
    Jan 20, 2004
    Salt Lake...
    But.... You're assuming that the viewers of the channels that went away would just go away. I don't think that's the case. How many viewers were around when there was only 3 or 4 channels to watch? But it doesn't really matter.... Something will have to change. People seem to be getting closer and closer saying ‘screw it!’….

    I can afford to pay $200 or $300 a month for TV but I won’t do it. I’ll go back to broadcast TV with a Tivo before I hit $200 and I don’t think I’m alone.
     
  4. Sep 15, 2012 #84 of 134
    Diana C

    Diana C Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    2,117
    293
    Mar 30, 2007
    New Jersey
    No, as I said, the viewership for each of the remaining channels would go up. But even if each viewer subscribed to, say, half of the remaining channels, they would end up costing about $40 to $50 once you add in the distributor's margin (remember these are the costs to the cable and satellite operators...your cost would be somewhat higher).

    $40 for 10 or so channels...show how that's better than what we have now.
     
  5. Sep 15, 2012 #85 of 134
    crkeehn

    crkeehn Godfather

    368
    2
    Apr 22, 2002
    What?????
    No BBCA??????
    What will I do for My Top Gear and Graham Norton fixes?

    Sorry for the awkward post, couldn't get multi-quote to work.
     
  6. Sep 15, 2012 #86 of 134
    Satelliteracer

    Satelliteracer Hall Of Fame

    3,042
    37
    Dec 6, 2006
  7. Sep 15, 2012 #87 of 134
    Satelliteracer

    Satelliteracer Hall Of Fame

    3,042
    37
    Dec 6, 2006
    Thing is, they won't and everyone knows it. You can't work together, that's collusion and illegal. As soon as someone stands up, another one goes for a short term win and signs them up to try and lure customers away from the one that doesn't have it.
     
  8. Sep 15, 2012 #88 of 134
    Satelliteracer

    Satelliteracer Hall Of Fame

    3,042
    37
    Dec 6, 2006
    Not at all. I talking about what is desired and what is reality. I'm showing that many customers who don't like sports want it to be tiered. Fair point. D* tries to do that with Pac 12 and what happens? Those that don't care about cost want it no matter what. Again, puts a distributor in a very difficult position. Trying to manage insane cost increases, mostly at the hands of sports, while also delivering a product that SOME people (very passionate) want without impacting everyone.

    Very difficult. My point with HBO is that you simply will not see sports in a HBO time a la carte format any time soon, in my opinion. Despite the fact the distributors would love to see that happen to control costs and despite the fact many customers would love to see that, the economics won't allow for it.

    The sports channels are often backing into a number based on over reaching on what they promised the team and\or league. Let's take the Lakers channel for example. They grossly overpaid for that product for the next 20 years. Now they have to monetize it across all these distributors. Everyone has to pay a ton of money to make them whole so they can make the Lakers whole. If that channel was only on a sports tier or a la carte as the poster suggested, the channel would be about $50 a month for that one channel in order for TWC to deliver the same revenue to the Lakers. That is because the number of people truly interested in the channel is far far far less than the required distribution the network needs. That's why I say that the HBO model won't work there. It's hard enough to get sports channels into a sports tier (ironic statement, don't you think), but putting them solely a la carte I don't see happening due to the economics at work.
     
  9. Sep 15, 2012 #89 of 134
    Carl Spock

    Carl Spock Superfly

    4,567
    0
    Sep 3, 2004
    Satelliteracer, I really appreciate your replies and participation. Thumbs up to you! :righton: :)

    The service providers are in a bad position. I certainly wouldn't want to be DirecTV in a fragmenting market.

    It would be interesting if someone would try a premium subscription for a limited market channel. But then, I bet the market research has been taken and there just wouldn't be enough subscribers to make this work. You'd need a broader base to support the network. I could see a sports pack consisting of all of these college sports channels popping up. That I would buy. If the package was diverse enough to be a nationwide draw, including people who are simply fans of college sports and not just the alumni of a particular conference, maybe it would work.
     
  10. Sep 15, 2012 #90 of 134
    Diana C

    Diana C Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    2,117
    293
    Mar 30, 2007
    New Jersey
    Satelliteracer is exactly correct. Just look at the numbers for ESPN...if split off into a premium it would be prohibitively expensive - something around $200 per month for the subscriber. There are lots of reasons for this situation, from player salaries to league excesses to channel demands, but you can't unring the bell.
     
  11. Sep 15, 2012 #91 of 134
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    The average bill is around $100. You only watch 4 channels?????

    If you do, you are a complete outlier.
     
  12. Sep 15, 2012 #92 of 134
    mreposter

    mreposter Hall Of Fame

    1,711
    1
    Jul 29, 2006
    So, we're sort of like dairy cows - here to be milked... ?
    Moooo
     
  13. Sep 15, 2012 #93 of 134
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,365
    580
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    Keee-rect! Cows to the left, sheeple to the right.... But at least we in CA are told our herds are happy herds! :sure:
     
  14. Sep 16, 2012 #94 of 134
    Mike Greer

    Mike Greer Hall Of Fame

    1,612
    15
    Jan 20, 2004
    Salt Lake...
    Even if the prices don't go down at least we could take the money wasted on channels that nearly no one wants and spend that on real programming...

    I know what you're saying - I don't think it is quite as bad as you do but again... If something doesn't change there won't be as many subs 5 years from now....
     
  15. Sep 16, 2012 #95 of 134
    Mike Greer

    Mike Greer Hall Of Fame

    1,612
    15
    Jan 20, 2004
    Salt Lake...
    I'm not sure what you mean by 'a complete outlier' but 4 channels isn't too far off if you don't count my locals (that I don't need to pay for anyway) and showtime.

    Discovery, SyFi, Comedy Central and History Channel are pretty much it. I guess I do watch ESPN once in a while but could live without it....

    Bottom line - I pay way too much of the convenience of DirecTV...
     
  16. Sep 16, 2012 #96 of 134
    Carl Spock

    Carl Spock Superfly

    4,567
    0
    Sep 3, 2004
    Mike, I just think you are more honest than most about how few TV stations you actually watch. I know for me, 75% of my watching is from maybe half a dozen stations, and that includes my locals.

    We want the smorgasbord, and will occasionally grab a plate of food that we rarely eat, but most of the time we feed from the same basic food groups.
     
  17. Sep 16, 2012 #97 of 134
    sigma1914

    sigma1914 Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    14,602
    372
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    We should have a poll. :) I just counted, and I watch 35 basic cable channels...HBO, Showtime, Starz,...random RSNs for sports packages...and 6 networks.
     
  18. Sep 16, 2012 #98 of 134
    spartanstew

    spartanstew Dry as a bone

    12,566
    61
    Nov 16, 2005
    Wylie, Texas
    My favorites list only has 22 Channels. Of those, 90% of my viewing is on 10 channels (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, ESPN, TBS, TNT, USA, HBO, SHO)
     
  19. Sep 17, 2012 #99 of 134
    PrinceLH

    PrinceLH New Member

    490
    8
    Feb 18, 2003
    I only watch consistantly:

    FOX News
    AMC
    NBCS
    Regional Sports Channel
    My CBS Affiliate
    TV Land
    Hallmark
    The Weather Channel
    Palladium
    MGM

    If I could just have these, for $20.00 a month, I'd drop the rest!
     
  20. davidpo

    davidpo AllStar

    59
    0
    Apr 6, 2006
    I'd say in another 10 yrs ,if the current trend of rate increases continues or increases. I would not be surprised to see a mass exdous of subscribers,and the providers will just have to lower their prices or go poof. When the avg bill goes over $100 or higher there will be alot of people going back to ota. Same goes for ticket prices to sporting events at some point people will stop going especially, if the economy keeps going down the tubes.

    Then again humans are a dumb lot sometimes,and some just amaze me. I know as far as I'm concerned once the bill hits over $100. I will be going back to 4 channels and netflix or something.
     

Share This Page