Who is to say that there would be a negligible decrease in subscribers to regular packages if they took the sports channels away? Sports have many of the highest rated programing hours every year. It sure seems like a lot of people like them. You make it sound like sports are the only channels that don't want to be separate from the general package. Every channel wants to be in the general package. Did AMC allow IFC and Sundance to become ala-carte channels? No, They bundled those channels in with their AMC contract.
Your point about how less subscribers to sports channels would result in a higher cost per channel could be said about any channel. Do you really think the cost of channels like AMC would stay the same if customers had to specifically choose to sign up for them on an individual basis? I sure don't. I think they would raise their per customer cost to cover the lost income from all the people who only had AMC because it was included in their package. If that is the case than boom I am subsidizing AMC (or keeping your cost for AMC lower by also paying a portion of AMC's income).
I have nothing against AMC. I was just using them as an example. The truth is every channel would either cost more or no longer exist if they were taken out of the general packages and only the people who really wanted them had to pay for them. Everyone here seems to think that is only true for sports channels but that's just not the case. I'll say it again. Everyone is paying for (or subsidizing) channels they don't watch. Not just sports bashers. That's just the way the cable and satellite TV business works.
1. You are mixing two things. You are talking A la Carte, I am not.
2. I say there would certainly be a negligible decrease. If Dish offered an all sports package, and then the same packages they do now, without the sports, you can't think any meaningful percentage of households would drop the regular packages. Hardly anyone would. They would keep them, and then those families that wanted the sports would, in addition, get the sports package. (For the sake of this discussion the two together is even the same as what someone would pay now) There can't be more than a tiny percentage of households that would only get the sports package. Meanwhile the regular package would cost much less, and people would have the choice, either way, to save money. But I maintain most households are not giving up USA, TNT, A&E, etc etc.... but many will be glad to save the money and not get the Sports. I should say there willl still be a healthy percentage of homes that will get the sports, but much much less than get the regular packages.
3.
"Everyone is paying for (or subsidizing) channels they don't watch. Not just sports bashers." I agree. Problem is, what we pay for three RSN's could be three times or more that many other channels. And that's the rub. It's not an equal playing field. I don't mind paying for a few channels I don't really watch, the cost of most even combined isn't way out of the question. But three or so RSN's, ESPN, and the many other sports channels that cost more than regular channels adds up fast. There are articles devoted to the non proportionate cost of Sports.
4. Think about the statement (If true) that 1/2 the cost is because of Sports. Now look at the myriad of Channels, and what smaller percentage are sports channels. That small percentage of channels is costing 1/2 the total amount, and that's the problem.