Official word on FOX Sports 1?

[osu1991]

Its not just sports, its that the bundling in general offers no flexibility. Even in a basic bundle package, one has to pay for 3 or 4 sports channels, 3 or 4 cartoon channels, 3 or 4 so called music channels, 3 or 4 wife beater channels, etc etc etc.. They have diluted the programming so much, and then extort more money for a hundred channels. I would be ok if a bundle just included espn, disney, lifetime,cmt etc.., but no I have to also pay for espn 2, espnu, espnews, fsn, mtv, vh1, cmt, disney jr, toondisney, disneyxd, all of which are just showing repeats of the same programming over and over that has already aired on the main channel.

 

[gadgtfreek]

I agree, everyone is always on sports, but look at companies like Disney and Viacom, they force you to take the whole batch, or none. Look at Viacom:

Television networks[edit]
MTV Networks
MTV
MTV2
Tr3s
MTV Desi
MTV Hits
MTV Jams
mtvU
VH1
VH1 Classic
VH1 Soul
CMT
CMT Pure Country
CMT (Canada) (10%)
Palladia
Nickelodeon
Nick 2/Nick at Nite
Nick Jr.
TeenNick
Nicktoons
TV Land
Nick Gas (1999 –2009)
NickMom
BET Networks
BET
BET Hip-Hop
BET Gospel
Centric
Comedy Central
Logo
TMF
VIVA
Spike

 

[Tampa8]

No where near all those channels are carried by Dish, not even half, and then not in every package. Beyond that if you compare what companies insist the provider carries to Sports where cost is looked at, Sports will far and away be the larger cost factor. That Dish has to carry a couple of AMC channels to get the ones people most watch or channels from Viacom the same, pales in comparison to what the RSN's and all the sports channels that have popped up cost.
I'm not defending that Dish has to carry channels if they want the "Good" ones like Viacom and others do, but the reason Sports is singled out is their relative cost to other programming.

Dare2be has it right, adding more sports channels does nothing but raise the cost. In this case competition means bidding on sporting events by even more channels, each one trying to get their moniker sport and willing to overpay to get it so they can stay relevant and get advertisers, and justify their cost to the Satellite/Cable companies and make it hard for them not to carry the channel.

 

[gadgtfreek]

I understand all of those channels arent carried, its an example. But, what if Viacom decided you have to take them all or get none? Now CBS is looking at 600% increase in one market, companies want more pc of the pie.

 

[osu1991]

I'm not against sports obviously or bundling in general. I'm against the current model of diluting the programming into a few hundred channels and requiring all them be bundled into 1 2 or 3 packages. There is no diversity or flexibility for the consumer. AlaCarte isn't going to happen, but I think there needs to be smaller more affordable packages with just the necessities and then add on bundles of the other stuff for the people that want them, also get rid of the BS HD add on fee that some companies are charging.

 

[gadgtfreek]

Maybe these contracts companies like Apple, Google, Intel, etc... are allegedly working on will change things, but I see programmers as the IRS. They are going to get their money one way or another...

 

[Tampa8]

What if though isn't what is. Viacom isn't going to try to make someone take all those channels. And no one is paying anywhere near what the local channels are trying to get.
What you are pointing out is true enough however - our cost goes up when they all want more money but that is going to happen in any scenario.
Specifically, the affiliate set-up does need some changing, but it's more politics than anything else, assuming people still want their local news to be available.
But even then, the cost of the networks is tiny to what Sports costs, again why Sports is singled out. Everything you and others bring up is mostly true, and could potentially lower the total costs for some if they wanted only a very few channels and are willing to pay per channel more but be able to get less channels. But Sports as a whole really needs to be in a separate package or at least packaged differently.

 

[gadgtfreek]

At the end of the day, I dont think sports are leaving the general packages. Why? Because regardless of the general opinion with forum members here, sports are big and ESPN/Fox know it. People can say what they want here about not caring about sports, but you are a minority.

I hope we get Fox1.

 

[dare2be]

I hope you get Fox1 too, but I hope you get to pay for the unsubsidized cost.

 

[psychotrope]

I think one other thing that makes sports a bigger money commodity is perhaps its unique appeal to advertisers. With DVRs in nearly every DISH subscribers' home, how many people watch the commercials for The Big Bang Theory, unless you have a big party with all your friends over to watch it "live"? Am I right to assume that a very large percentage of people are skipping the commercials quite comfortably with their DVRs for recorded shows and movies (if applicable) that don't have a very large "live," real-time appeal? Meanwhile, advertisers who choose to advertise during live sporting events know that they have a relatively more captive audience due to the live nature and viewers wanting to see what happens at it unfolds in real time. If you are watching a big game, you may not even want to miss ten seconds so you don't even change channels during the commercials to surf. And with Dish's auto-hopper and other ways for customers to avoid seeing commercials, live sports just becomes more and more valuable to advertisers. Of course there is the rare event such as the last episode of Seinfeld where everyone watches it as if it were a true "live" event. But that's rare. IMHO, that could be one reason why sports channels (that show live events) can demand higher rates, if that is the case.

 

[odbrv]

I have trained myself to delay the start of my Saturday football watching until the late game start time . I have recorded the earlier games. I watch in 3.5 hours what use to take all day. I skip through all the commercials, the time between plays, and half times. The 30 second skip forward is almost perfect for between plays elimination. On Sunday I watch the Red Zone to eliminate commercials. I record the Sunday night football and watch it as a lead in to Monday night football. So I never see any commercials and save a lot of time to do other things with the family.

 

[Scherrman]

I have trained myself to delay the start of my Saturday football watching until the late game start time . I have recorded the earlier games. I watch in 3.5 hours what use to take all day. I skip through all the commercials, the time between plays, and half times. The 30 second skip forward is almost perfect for between plays elimination. On Sunday I watch the Red Zone to eliminate commercials. I record the Sunday night football and watch it as a lead in to Monday night football. So I never see any commercials and save a lot of time to do other things with the family.

That sounds like a nice set up but I could never do it. When it comes to sports I need to watch them live. I always feel the need to be up to date on everything. I am also in about 4 different fantasy football leagues and have bets placed on games as well.

 

[psychotrope]

I have trained myself to delay the start of my Saturday football watching until the late game start time . I have recorded the earlier games. I watch in 3.5 hours what use to take all day. I skip through all the commercials, the time between plays, and half times. The 30 second skip forward is almost perfect for between plays elimination. On Sunday I watch the Red Zone to eliminate commercials. I record the Sunday night football and watch it as a lead in to Monday night football. So I never see any commercials and save a lot of time to do other things with the family.

That's pretty impressive. I can't imagine many people that would organize this kind of set up and execute it to perfection as you seem to. Nicely done. I like that the bonus is extra time with the family. Maybe I need to re-think my college football days along the same lines.

 

[dishfan82]

Maybe dish could roll out a you pick 50 or 75 or 100 channels and not requiring you pick sports. Sports could be in the top 120 and up. I'd have no problem picking 75 channels I watch. What about all those religious channels? I've never watched any of those. They could be in a separate package. I would have sports channels in a you pick package if it was available. However for someone who doesn't care for sports that would be perfect for them.

 

[king3pj]

My problem is that with our connected world I think it would be almost impossible for me to not know the result of the game before I watched it if I tried your method. Occasionally I will try to record Tigers day games and go on media blackout until I get home from work to watch it but it doesn't usually seem to work out. Once I know the results of the game I think I would rather just watch highlights than spend the time to watch a recording.

 

[king3pj]

Maybe dish could roll out a you pick 50 or 75 or 100 channels and not requiring you pick sports. Sports could be in the top 120 and up. I'd have no problem picking 75 channels I watch. What about all those religious channels? I've never watched any of those. They could be in a separate package. I would have sports channels in a you pick package if it was available. However for someone who doesn't care for sports that would be perfect for them.

People have brought up this idea many times. There are several problems with it. First, some channels cost 3 cents and some cost 4 dollars. With that much of a price difference they aren't likely to treat channels as equal and let you pick a set number. Second, all the channels are owned by just a few companies. They don't let anyone have their most popular channels without taking some of the less popular channels too. As long as the TV business is run this way you won't ever see a pick whatever number of channels system.

If you really want to only pay for what you watch iTunes and Amazon are your best bet. They are the only true ala-carte out there. People who only watch a few shows are better off not paying for a cable or satellite provider and just buying season passes on the shows they watch. Same goes for movie lovers.

 

[Yespage]

Maybe dish could roll out a you pick 50 or 75 or 100 channels and not requiring you pick sports. Sports could be in the top 120 and up. I'd have no problem picking 75 channels I watch. What about all those religious channels? I've never watched any of those. They could be in a separate package. I would have sports channels in a you pick package if it was available. However for someone who doesn't care for sports that would be perfect for them.

There would need to be different groups of channels. TCM, Science like channels would cost more to the sub than TNT or TBS.

The problem is, Disney wants every person who has cable/sat to pay for ESPN. They don't actually care if people watch ESPN or not, they just want to be paid for it. ESPN is a quasi-must carry channel, so Disney can get away with just about anything. What should be done or what could be done isn't how it will be done. It isn't fair to the viewers of ESPN or the people that don't care about sports.

 

[king3pj]

And it's not just Disney doing that. Every channel owner wants their channels paid for by as many people as possible. They are all owned by a few big companies. I do watch non-sports programming sometimes. I know that I sure wouldn't pay for Dish if it wasn't for sports though. I can get everything else that I watch much cheaper with iTunes season passes. Throw in an $8 Netflix subscription and I would have more than enough to watch for much less money.

Live sports are what keeps me paying my Dish bill. There still isn't any good legal way to get live sports with the teams I care about without it.

 

[dare2be]

IMHO, that could be one reason why sports channels (that show live events) can demand higher rates, if that is the case.

Well, first you said the appeal to advertisers is higher, which makes perfect sense, and is why advertisers pay a higher rate for airtime than for non-sporting events. So how does that translate into the channels demanding higher transmission fees on top of the higher advertising revenue they get? That's just double-dipping.

 

[dishfan82]

MLB has their app which you do pay for the season to watch home and away games of your team. The problem is I don't think