(01-28-2019 02:59 PM)kreed5120 Wrote:  So let me get this straight. Americans are paying nearly $7/mo for ABC, Fox, CBS, and NBC. Shows that they can get for free with an antenna. I'm surprised we don't see more cable companies exclude these from their packages. I've noticed some of the online streaming bundles do.

Sling is trying to fight that but if you want NBCSN or FS1 you have to take at the bare minimum Fox and NBCs owned and operated affiliates. It's why CBS Sports Network isnt on Sling, because Sling didnt want to add CBS. Somehow they got away with not having ABC in their Sling Orange package

Its silly you have to pay for these networks to get cable channels you want but that is how the system is set up

(01-29-2019 09:36 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 02:59 PM)kreed5120 Wrote:  So let me get this straight. Americans are paying nearly $7/mo for ABC, Fox, CBS, and NBC. Shows that they can get for free with an antenna. I'm surprised we don't see more cable companies exclude these from their packages. I've noticed some of the online streaming bundles do.

Sling is trying to fight that but if you want NBCSN or FS1 you have to take at the bare minimum Fox and NBCs owned and operated affiliates. It's why CBS Sports Network isnt on Sling, because Sling didnt want to add CBS. Somehow they got away with not having ABC in their Sling Orange package

Its silly you have to pay for these networks to get cable channels you want but that is how the system is set up

The options around it are not really there.

It will cost you $25 a month to have ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN3 without a cable subscription on Sling.

Its $40 a month if you want ESPN and FS1 on Sling. YouTube TV throws in CBSSN at the $40 dollar price point.

It would be nice to have a sports only service for $20 a month that included all the ABC/NBC/CBS/FOX sports offerings all in one place. Maybe skimp on the pro sports networks to save on margin.

Instead you must go to a 40-50 dollar OTT package for full sports coverage which includes a lot of channels one could find easily for free.

I would honestly be surprised if the channel owners would agree to pure a la carte channel selection. Current channel pricing assumes that the channels are part of a bundle. If channels were offered on a pure a la carte basis, their prices would need to be increased to capture the lost revenue from bundle customers.

(01-28-2019 02:59 PM)kreed5120 Wrote:  So let me get this straight. Americans are paying nearly $7/mo for ABC, Fox, CBS, and NBC. Shows that they can get for free with an antenna. I'm surprised we don't see more cable companies exclude these from their packages. I've noticed some of the online streaming bundles do.

That only works if you are close enough or in a line of sight to get the OTA's. If you live in a valley or in outlying areas, you still need cable to get these channels, as it was when cable was originally conceived in the 1950's.

(01-30-2019 08:26 AM)orangefan Wrote:  I would honestly be surprised if the channel owners would agree to this. Current channel pricing assumes that the channels are part of a bundle. If channels were offered on a pure a la carte basis, their prices would need to be increased to capture the lost revenue from bundle customers.

They do have bundles.

They just don't have the right kind of bundles the consumer wants.

Most consider a full sports offering to include ABC/ESPN, NBC/NBCSN, Fox/FS1, CBS/CBSN and the secondary channels/regionals from those networks. That is what the OTT packages at 40-50 dollars include with a few specialty channels.

Its just that you have to pay in addition to that 15-20 dollar sports bundle a Philo type 16 dollar bundle of non-sports channels plus paying another 10 dollars for interface/DVR ect. built into the plan to make it a total 45-50.

A lot of consumers I bet would be fine with a 22.95 sports bundle and go free with the non-sports channels since there are so many legal ways to do that. They may watch news at home but they probably won't stream it at a bar like they may do a game.

(01-30-2019 08:26 AM)orangefan Wrote:  I would honestly be surprised if the channel owners would agree to this. Current channel pricing assumes that the channels are part of a bundle. If channels were offered on a pure a la carte basis, their prices would need to be increased to capture the lost revenue from bundle customers.

I might pay more for select channels in exchange for reduced commercials. I rarely watch live tv anymore and prefer watching select programs via apps with my DIRECTV NOW login...specifically FOX channels. Saves me time, win-win. Some shows on demand with DTV NOW have abbreviated ad times as well which I also appreciate.

(01-28-2019 01:55 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

Wildly overvalued:
- Bravo
- CNN
- Food Network
- HGTV
- National Geographic
- Paramount

(01-31-2019 07:52 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 01:55 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

Wildly overvalued:
- Bravo
- CNN
- Food Network
- HGTV
- National Geographic
- Paramount

Except HGTV and Food Network have a lot more viewers other channels and are two networks that are requested by the general public unlike sports channels that are only wanted by 20% of the households.

(01-31-2019 08:15 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 07:52 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 01:55 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

Wildly overvalued:
- Bravo
- CNN
- Food Network
- HGTV
- National Geographic
- Paramount

Except HGTV and Food Network have a lot more viewers other channels and are two networks that are requested by the general public unlike sports channels that are only wanted by 20% of the households.

HGTV is incredibly popular
https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/the-top-...are/372335

Food Network and HGTV were both owned by the Scripps Corp until recently, so they probably levergard HGTV to get a good price on Food Network

MLB Network at $2 and getting more than NFL Network is crazy to me

I've never seen anything ratings wise from the two (HGTV/Food) that would justify those prices. Who knew @ HGTV.

I stand by the other four.

Interesting that the Big10 network is only getting 20 cents. Only the World Fishing Channel, Disney Jr, and the Tennis Channel received the same or less money. Apparently the SEC and Pac12 Networks aren’t carried at all.

(01-31-2019 09:49 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Interesting that the Big10 network is only getting 20 cents. Only the World Fishing Channel, Disney Jr, and the Tennis Channel received the same or less money. Apparently the SEC and Pac12 Networks aren’t carried at all.

That has to be the non Big 10 state rate

(01-31-2019 09:08 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I've never seen anything ratings wise from the two (HGTV/Food) that would justify those prices. Who knew @ HGTV.

I stand by the other four.

HGTV viewers tend to be younger professional couples who own or plan to buy a house. Excellent yet hard to reach demographic.

(01-31-2019 09:49 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Apparently the SEC and Pac12 Networks aren’t carried at all.

Have Direct can confirm Pac12 not carried.

(01-31-2019 08:40 AM)solohawks Wrote:  MLB Network at $2 and getting more than NFL Network is crazy to me

Doesn't MLB Network carry live MLB games almost every day during the regular season? Seems to me that would be more valuable than NFL Network having only 2 or 3 Thursday games a year that are not also on Fox.

Seems to me the price per channel is driven by some combination of
(a) The number of people who watch the channel -- and the TV providers have far better nonpublic data on this than anything that is reported by the media or claimed on the internets. Data on the number of sets tuned in at any time, on the number of different people who watch at some point in time, on the number of "heavy watchers" who spend a very large amount of time watching that one channel, etc.
(b) The perceived number of people who would cancel their subscription, or refuse to subscribe in the first place, if their beloved channel was not included in the lineup.

(01-31-2019 01:32 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 08:40 AM)solohawks Wrote:  MLB Network at $2 and getting more than NFL Network is crazy to me

Doesn't MLB Network carry live MLB games almost every day during the regular season? Seems to me that would be more valuable than NFL Network having only 2 or 3 Thursday games a year that are not also on Fox.

Seems to me the price per channel is driven by some combination of
(a) The number of people who watch the channel -- and the TV providers have far better nonpublic data on this than anything that is reported by the media or claimed on the internets. Data on the number of sets tuned in at any time, on the number of different people who watch at some point in time, on the number of "heavy watchers" who spend a very large amount of time watching that one channel, etc.
(b) The perceived number of people who would cancel their subscription, or refuse to subscribe in the first place, if their beloved channel was not included in the lineup.

But they are non exclusive and often compete against the game on the local RSN. Not mention national games can be found on ESPN, Fox and TBS. Plus hardcore baseball fans can watch virtually all MLB Network games on their local RSN or MLB.TV. MLB Network is great for a hardcore baseball fan and they do have much more live content than NFL network but at $2 a subscriber no wonder dish doesnt want to carry it

(01-31-2019 01:55 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 01:32 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 08:40 AM)solohawks Wrote:  MLB Network at $2 and getting more than NFL Network is crazy to me

Doesn't MLB Network carry live MLB games almost every day during the regular season? Seems to me that would be more valuable than NFL Network having only 2 or 3 Thursday games a year that are not also on Fox.

Seems to me the price per channel is driven by some combination of
(a) The number of people who watch the channel -- and the TV providers have far better nonpublic data on this than anything that is reported by the media or claimed on the internets. Data on the number of sets tuned in at any time, on the number of different people who watch at some point in time, on the number of "heavy watchers" who spend a very large amount of time watching that one channel, etc.
(b) The perceived number of people who would cancel their subscription, or refuse to subscribe in the first place, if their beloved channel was not included in the lineup.

But they are non exclusive and often compete against the game on the local RSN. Not mention national games can be found on ESPN, Fox and TBS. Plus hardcore baseball fans can watch virtually all MLB Network games on their local RSN or MLB.TV. MLB Network is great for a hardcore baseball fan and they do have much more live content than NFL network but at $2 a subscriber no wonder dish doesnt want to carry it

I also don;t think MLB network is as widely carried: i.e. it is more on expanded tiers or sports tiers mroe often than NFL Network is. Allowing them to charge more without much backlash.

Frankly the NFL Network way in which they fleeced cablers to get them on (then immediately sold the bulk of the package to OTA networks after that) along with how public the B10N was about their expansion, IMO is what lead to the public being made aware of the carriage fees, and has lead to some of the cord cutting.

(01-31-2019 01:55 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 01:32 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 08:40 AM)solohawks Wrote:  MLB Network at $2 and getting more than NFL Network is crazy to me

Doesn't MLB Network carry live MLB games almost every day during the regular season? Seems to me that would be more valuable than NFL Network having only 2 or 3 Thursday games a year that are not also on Fox.

Seems to me the price per channel is driven by some combination of
(a) The number of people who watch the channel -- and the TV providers have far better nonpublic data on this than anything that is reported by the media or claimed on the internets. Data on the number of sets tuned in at any time, on the number of different people who watch at some point in time, on the number of "heavy watchers" who spend a very large amount of time watching that one channel, etc.
(b) The perceived number of people who would cancel their subscription, or refuse to subscribe in the first place, if their beloved channel was not included in the lineup.

But they are non exclusive and often compete against the game on the local RSN. Not mention national games can be found on ESPN, Fox and TBS. Plus hardcore baseball fans can watch virtually all MLB Network games on their local RSN or MLB.TV. MLB Network is great for a hardcore baseball fan and they do have much more live content than NFL network but at $2 a subscriber no wonder dish doesnt want to carry it

The conflicts get blacked out.
MLB Network is great for the casual fan who just wants to put something on the screen other than a Law and Order rerun.

(02-01-2019 01:47 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 01:55 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 01:32 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 08:40 AM)solohawks Wrote:  MLB Network at $2 and getting more than NFL Network is crazy to me

Doesn't MLB Network carry live MLB games almost every day during the regular season? Seems to me that would be more valuable than NFL Network having only 2 or 3 Thursday games a year that are not also on Fox.

Seems to me the price per channel is driven by some combination of
(a) The number of people who watch the channel -- and the TV providers have far better nonpublic data on this than anything that is reported by the media or claimed on the internets. Data on the number of sets tuned in at any time, on the number of different people who watch at some point in time, on the number of "heavy watchers" who spend a very large amount of time watching that one channel, etc.
(b) The perceived number of people who would cancel their subscription, or refuse to subscribe in the first place, if their beloved channel was not included in the lineup.

But they are non exclusive and often compete against the game on the local RSN. Not mention national games can be found on ESPN, Fox and TBS. Plus hardcore baseball fans can watch virtually all MLB Network games on their local RSN or MLB.TV. MLB Network is great for a hardcore baseball fan and they do have much more live content than NFL network but at $2 a subscriber no wonder dish doesnt want to carry it

The conflicts get blacked out.
MLB Network is great for the casual fan who just wants to put something on the screen other than a Law and Order rerun.

If your local team is on MLB Network yes it will be blacked out. But if say the Braves are playing at 7PM, MLB Network may run another game concurrently.

(02-01-2019 11:53 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 01:55 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 01:32 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 08:40 AM)solohawks Wrote:  MLB Network at $2 and getting more than NFL Network is crazy to me

Doesn't MLB Network carry live MLB games almost every day during the regular season? Seems to me that would be more valuable than NFL Network having only 2 or 3 Thursday games a year that are not also on Fox.

Seems to me the price per channel is driven by some combination of
(a) The number of people who watch the channel -- and the TV providers have far better nonpublic data on this than anything that is reported by the media or claimed on the internets. Data on the number of sets tuned in at any time, on the number of different people who watch at some point in time, on the number of "heavy watchers" who spend a very large amount of time watching that one channel, etc.
(b) The perceived number of people who would cancel their subscription, or refuse to subscribe in the first place, if their beloved channel was not included in the lineup.

But they are non exclusive and often compete against the game on the local RSN. Not mention national games can be found on ESPN, Fox and TBS. Plus hardcore baseball fans can watch virtually all MLB Network games on their local RSN or MLB.TV. MLB Network is great for a hardcore baseball fan and they do have much more live content than NFL network but at $2 a subscriber no wonder dish doesnt want to carry it

I also don;t think MLB network is as widely carried: i.e. it is more on expanded tiers or sports tiers mroe often than NFL Network is. Allowing them to charge more without much backlash.

Frankly the NFL Network way in which they fleeced cablers to get them on (then immediately sold the bulk of the package to OTA networks after that) along with how public the B10N was about their expansion, IMO is what lead to the public being made aware of the carriage fees, and has lead to some of the cord cutting.

You're not kidding. I don't blame comcast for pushing NFL to the sports tier. They still have exclusive games but only one or two are Thursday night. The rest are late season Saturday games and an England games