I have a question:
Why does everyone talk about having a provider without sports and how much cheaper that would be, but never about a provider with sports but without movies and other stuff and how much cheaper that would be? I mean, a big sports fan could just as easily say "Hey, I never watch Disney, why should I have to pay for it?" (And Disney is an expensive channel for providers, right?). I'm just saying, it cuts both ways. Sports channels may be expensive to the provider, relatively speaking, but even if they're $3.00 a pop, a package with two RSNs, three ESPNs, TNT (for basketball), Versus (for hockey), and the NFL Network (for football), would only be $24. Throw in your local OTA networks, whatever the cheapest 24 hour news channel is, and a few very cheap general interest channels (and/or sort of "off-brand" sports channels that might be cheap), plus a little breathing room for overhead and profit, and you could do a "sports fan" package for $35 pretty easily.
If the industry winds up offering a package where non-sports fans don't have to pay for sports and get a price break, then it only seems fair that sports fans should be able to subscribe to a sports centric package that doesn't include children's programming and movie channels and whatever, and get a price break for that, too. There's no reason sports fans should have to pay through the nose because louder non-sports fans get a non-sports package and then sports channels have to raise their per subscriber fee to compensate, but sports fans still have to pay for Disney and the like.
That raises another important point with all of this, though -- anything that moves the ball significantly closer to al carte is likely to mean that you pay the same or more in the long run for less programming. Basically, any channel, sports or no, is not going to want to see it's income slide as only people with a direct interest subscribe -- so they'll likely raise what they charge to compensate for those lost subscribers. The end result? People will get only the channels they are interested in and not have the option to, say, catch an occasional movie if they are mainly a sports fan, or an occasional game if they are mainly a movie fan. I think the idea that rates will drop is a myth. Call me crazy, but I think the truth of the matter is that the current system of broad-based packages is best for the consumer -- at least people usually get a wide variety of channels for their money, rather than paying the same amount for a handful of channels only (the likely result of ala carte).
I'm betting the cost of all children's networks bundled together do not even equal the cost of one RSN. That is why the drum beats hardest for sports. You save the most there.
Look at me, I have the welcome pack. The only pack without ESPN. Because of that my total cost (DVR fee included) is under what JUST THE PROGRAMMING costs from your theortical pack (don't forget a huge portion of the bill is distribution related, as satellites, uplinks, and "free" installation are not free).
The best world would be more like the Canadian system. Genera-centric packs. Add in a distribution component based on how many packs you have. You could have:
-A "Basic" pack (standbys like TNT, TBS, Syfy, Spike, AMC, and so on)
-A few sports packs (basic: ESPN, ESPN2, local RSNs; expanded: Versus, NFL, Tennis, out of market RSNs, etc.)
-A "Lifestyle" pack (Food, Cooking, HGTV, DIY, etc)
-A "Kids" pack (Nick, Cartoon, etc.)
-A "Classics" pack (TV Land, Hallmark, TCM, etc.)
-A "Learning" pack (Discovery, History, TLC, etc) (Yes, I know it is a joke to call these learning channels anymore)
-A "Womens" pack (Lifetime, We, Oxygen, etc.)
-A "Music/Reality" pack (MTV, CMT, Fox Reality, etc.)
-A "News" pack (CNN, Fox, MSNBC, HLN, Headline News, etc.)
and so on.
Channels still grouped together, but in a way we don't pay for the types of channels we never watch.
