Retransmission Pricing Increasing Out of Control

[JustBob]

I read a lot of comments of DirecTV and DISH customers complaining about price increases and how they're not getting anything more for the added money. Most put the blame on DirecTV and DISH because that's who they're paying. (I'm guessing cable customers blame their cable companies in the same manner.) However it appears that the retransmission costs that the broadcasters pay the television stations is driving a lot of the increases. There's been some public disputes lately involving Lifetime and ESPN. But I don't think the average customer knows how much broadcasters are paying for the stations they're watching. If anyone has information on these numbers, I'd be interested in knowing them.

I've heard that some of the bigger channels are charging $.70-.80 per month per subscriber. I believe ESPN has been pushing higher retransmission prices for a while now. I've also heard ABC saying they're worth $2 per month per subscriber and in an article linked in another thread (http://www.satelliteguys.us/showthread.php?t=58633) Sinclair, which owns 58 television stations, believe that retransmission fees could get up to $4.50 per month per subscriber. Just think if you had to pay even $1 per month for every station that comes to you. We'd all be paying well over $100 per month for a basic package.

Why are we paying so much for stations that are getting revenue through commercials. Aren't we essentially paying double? The stations goal is supposed to be to increase viewership so it can charge more for commercial time. The retransmission fees shouldn't be producing revenue for the stations. They should be covering costs associated with the retransmission.

Something here has to stop. I know I don't have the full story here, but what I have read really scares me as to the direction things are heading. I'd like to hear more from people who know. I've searched around the FCC website a bit and haven't seen much. I think they're the only ones who can step in to control this. Otherwise we're going to keep having price increases just for basic packages. That means paying more to keep the same programming we already have. This isn't right.

-JustBob

 

[damaged]

Interesting, although I'm not sure most people are privy to the information regarding RT pricing, if you do happen across that information, we'd certainly like to see it, at least I would.

The FCC is on the side with the money, they work in the best interest of corporations, they haven't worked in the peoples best interest (except in the placebo capacity i.e. the occasional 'front' for political furtherance which helps to justify their continued existence) for a very long time, so don't count on them stepping in, the FCC would only step in if it is something that might remove some power from them.

The only way to stop it, is to stop buying the programming, and that isn't going to happen enmasse.

The majority will just pay the extra cash, just like they do with gas, never questioning the ryhme or reason for it, thinking is out of vogue these days.

I agree, it isn't right, but 'right' isn't fiscally prudent anymore. :\

 

[stevesmall]

Just think if you had to pay even $1 per month for every station that comes to you. We'd all be paying well over $100 per month for a basic package.


I cant agree with this as i would only be paying about 50 a month based on the channels i watch and if forced to i could get that down to 40 or so by paying alacarte pricing,

 

[JustBob]

Just think if you had to pay even $1 per month for every station that comes to you. We'd all be paying well over $100 per month for a basic package.


I cant agree with this as i would only be paying about 50 a month based on the channels i watch and if forced to i could get that down to 40 or so by paying alacarte pricing,

I never said anything about alacarte pricing. I was saying if all the channels in their basic package, which usually has 100-150 channels, charged the broadcasters $1 per month per subscriber. They'd be forced to pass those costs on to customers. I've been trying to find more information on this, but have found conflicting information. I know ESPN is charging $2 or more per month per subscriber and some networks (ABC, CBS) are charging $.70-.80. Stuff like that really bothers me. Paying for a channel that is also getting revenue from commercials. And to hear networks doing the same thing for something that is broadcast free OTA.

Now granted these high costs are only for the top few networks. But it seems to be expanding. DISH had dropped Lifetime for a while because of a dispute over these charges. Lifetime wanted to raise their fees 73%. Imagine your TV bill going up 73%! From what I've found it appears everyone is asking for more. I think there should be some nominal fee to get the channel out to people and then the television station should be making their money by having a quality product that more people choose to watch. Thereby allowing them to charge more for advertising.

These high retransmission fees might lead to more tiers and packages and alacarte pricing. I think that's a bad thing as well. Like many others there's only a handfull of channels that I actually watch with any regularity. But I like to have the option of surfing around a bit.

-JustBob

 

[Mike500]

I only watch about 8 channels and can do without the others. Does that mean tat I can only pay $8 a month with a la carte?

How about all of those channels that I pay for and don't watch?

 

[charper1]

Man I wish we could get the old C band a la cart pricing with DBS, heck and cable.

 

[Beavis]

I don't know how it is with E* but with D* about 14% of their total retransmission costs go to the RSN's. That's freakin nuts.

 

[Tower Guy]

Why are we paying so much for stations that are getting revenue through commercials. Aren't we essentially paying double?

-JustBob

Yes, you are paying double. The pay TV system in the US has many problems with the way that channels are funded. That is one reason that ala carte is gaining steam. How many widows on fixed incomes are paying $4.50 per month for ESPN, but never watch it? Yet in the case of ESPN, some of that money flows back to the sports teams. It's not all profit for Disney.

I propose that your supplier tabulate the viewing that you do and allocate your monthly fees back to the stations that you actually watch. A few networks would be insolvent. Some would make more money.

 

[rmmrph]

A few networks would be insolvent. Some would make more money.

Yes, that is called free market. The concept has both content & service providers up in arms. Content providers would no longer able to foist crap channels off on viewers, because they won't pay. goodbye to current bundling practices. "take our most popular channels, along with 6 more worthless ones or you can't have any of them." Service providers don't like it because more than likely, their revenues would shrink. If folks only ordered the 8 or so channels they actually watched, even if they costed $3-4 each, which they don't, customers would be spending $30-35/mo instead of the $40-60 they have you on the hook for now. Also channel costs would be more transparent, "hey were raising rates $3/mo., but we gave you channel xyz." (that only cost us .75)

 

[Seabow]

The only problem I see with a la carte is, what if you like a channel that isn't very popular?

For example, I only watch OLN for the Survivor reruns. What if OLN isn't very popular and is discontinued. I would be very unhappy.

 

[stone phillips420]

Just think if you had to pay even $1 per month for every station that comes to you. We'd all be paying well over $100 per month for a basic package.

id gladly pay a dollar per channel only if ala carte is added, in My case the bill would go down substantially, cause i watch no more than twelve channels

 

[Tower Guy]

The only problem I see with a la carte is, what if you like a channel that isn't very popular?

For example, I only watch OLN for the Survivor reruns. What if OLN isn't very popular and is discontinued. I would be very unhappy.

OLN could buy a server and post the shows on the Internet for you to download for a fee.

 

[Mike500]

id gladly pay a dollar per channel only if ala carte is added, in My case the bill would go down substantially, cause i watch no more than twelve channels

I'd gladly pay $2 per channel a la carte.

 

[Mike500]

The only problem I see with a la carte is, what if you like a channel that isn't very popular?

For example, I only watch OLN for the Survivor reruns. What if OLN isn't very popular and is discontinued. I would be very unhappy.

Then, you'd have to figure out, what it's worth to you.

 

[rmmrph]

well you basing it on the idea that they would all cost the same. If this were to happen, there's nothing to say that in order to attract more customers that a less popular channel such as OLN would charge a very low rate say $.50 versus the $4.50 or so that ESPN might cost.