im about the same time frame, 1.5 to 2 years now without cable. Havent even noticed. If anything, we do a lot more stuff together and watch far less TV.
I have a hard time keeping up with my shows on netflix and hulu anyway.
OT: Television Consumer Freedom Act of 2013
- Thread starter crisper57
- Start date
I have a hard time keeping up with my shows on netflix and hulu anyway.
CardsFan88
ASFN Addict
- Joined
- May 28, 2002
- Posts
- 7,642
- Reaction score
- 4,742
Another way to look at it is that the big networks want more money, but can't raise prices due to the depression. So this way THEY get an increase, while everyone else withers and dies.
So basically it's another way for the individual networks to get more money. It's a form of shuffling titanic deck chairs.
They take a static pie and make ESPN's slice bigger by cutting it fewer ways. In a sense it's really a smaller pie with the more popular networks getting a bigger piece. The rest get the shaft.
So it's just more delay and pray tactics in a sense as well. Because it only works as people's bills will get smaller.
But some won't really. Those that HAVE to have EVERY channel, even the ones they don't like or ever watch, just to be able to say they have every channel....well their bill will probably massively increase.
Also some smaller networks that don't fail, because they have some sort of niche and customers who care to pay 10 bucks for LOGO or something a month, might allow those small networks to continue, but again you'll have each network trying to increase what they cost to offset fewer customers.
I also could see if everyone is asking for increases, besides the 'every channel' subscribers having a massive increase, increases overall might not take too long year wise. It just depends on how many have to massively increase their prices because 80 percent of homes didn't choose them, but the other 20 percent really like it. You could see in a sense each channel increasing what they want from .50-1.50 to $3-10 because 80 percent won't purchase the show. But every year or renegotiating period with the cable provider...each channel or collection of channels owned by an entity will be fighting for separate amounts and don't have to fit into a 'tier' and share with others. So this increases cable price inflation pressures. Cable channels used this tier and overall pricing pressure as a way to keep their prices of acquiring the license to show the content down. But now that will go out the window as people can 'choose' what they want. So in a sense there will be no magically 40 or 100 dollar or whatever arbitrary limit they are trying to hold onto. They will each go for what people are willing to pay, and that means ultimately higher prices.
It really could get quite crazy. But at least in the beginning the costs are lower, until each network has to increase it's price relative to how many people drop it. Some will leverage their position to get more because they can. So instead of $40-150 for cable you might see $30-400 for cable depending on what you want. Hell maybe some people end up with a cheaper bill like $20-25. Who knows. With most people's being less initially because each of us generally only watch a portion of the channels we get. I wonder if there will be a limit. Like can you subscribe to ONE channel?
Finally an interesting winner might be HBO, Starz, Showtime, Cinemax/TMC because since those were tiers you could buy for $7-15 a month each. Usually $15 for the first one $10 for the second, 8 for the 3rd and 8 for the 4th.......they now will be competitively priced against some of these other networks and might see a decent increase in subscriptions.
I also wouldn't be surprised if some people don't care about their current price, and would rather trade in the crap channels they don't watch for premiums they would want to watch. So get rid of Hallmark channel and five or ten others, and wow now you have HBO and your bill is the same. So it wouldn't surprise me to see the ultra premium channels do well under this scheme. I mean it basically will make ESPN as expensive as HBO, and some other ones, including real niche ones, like say LOGO as well. So comparatively HBO and the other ultra premiums will seem (if they keep their current prices or close to it) much cheaper overall.
So basically it's another way for the individual networks to get more money. It's a form of shuffling titanic deck chairs.
They take a static pie and make ESPN's slice bigger by cutting it fewer ways. In a sense it's really a smaller pie with the more popular networks getting a bigger piece. The rest get the shaft.
So it's just more delay and pray tactics in a sense as well. Because it only works as people's bills will get smaller.
But some won't really. Those that HAVE to have EVERY channel, even the ones they don't like or ever watch, just to be able to say they have every channel....well their bill will probably massively increase.
Also some smaller networks that don't fail, because they have some sort of niche and customers who care to pay 10 bucks for LOGO or something a month, might allow those small networks to continue, but again you'll have each network trying to increase what they cost to offset fewer customers.
I also could see if everyone is asking for increases, besides the 'every channel' subscribers having a massive increase, increases overall might not take too long year wise. It just depends on how many have to massively increase their prices because 80 percent of homes didn't choose them, but the other 20 percent really like it. You could see in a sense each channel increasing what they want from .50-1.50 to $3-10 because 80 percent won't purchase the show. But every year or renegotiating period with the cable provider...each channel or collection of channels owned by an entity will be fighting for separate amounts and don't have to fit into a 'tier' and share with others. So this increases cable price inflation pressures. Cable channels used this tier and overall pricing pressure as a way to keep their prices of acquiring the license to show the content down. But now that will go out the window as people can 'choose' what they want. So in a sense there will be no magically 40 or 100 dollar or whatever arbitrary limit they are trying to hold onto. They will each go for what people are willing to pay, and that means ultimately higher prices.
It really could get quite crazy. But at least in the beginning the costs are lower, until each network has to increase it's price relative to how many people drop it. Some will leverage their position to get more because they can. So instead of $40-150 for cable you might see $30-400 for cable depending on what you want. Hell maybe some people end up with a cheaper bill like $20-25. Who knows. With most people's being less initially because each of us generally only watch a portion of the channels we get. I wonder if there will be a limit. Like can you subscribe to ONE channel?
Finally an interesting winner might be HBO, Starz, Showtime, Cinemax/TMC because since those were tiers you could buy for $7-15 a month each. Usually $15 for the first one $10 for the second, 8 for the 3rd and 8 for the 4th.......they now will be competitively priced against some of these other networks and might see a decent increase in subscriptions.
I also wouldn't be surprised if some people don't care about their current price, and would rather trade in the crap channels they don't watch for premiums they would want to watch. So get rid of Hallmark channel and five or ten others, and wow now you have HBO and your bill is the same. So it wouldn't surprise me to see the ultra premium channels do well under this scheme. I mean it basically will make ESPN as expensive as HBO, and some other ones, including real niche ones, like say LOGO as well. So comparatively HBO and the other ultra premiums will seem (if they keep their current prices or close to it) much cheaper overall.
Last edited:
Solar7
Go Suns
I'm all for the lifting of blackouts... I'm an Anaheim Ducks fan, and no bars in the Vegas area could show the game on NBC if the Ducks were playing at home. Instead, they had to have the Fox Sports West package paid for. It's pretty ridiculous not to be able to watch playoff hockey due to a blackout when you live 4-5 hours away.
MigratingOsprey
Thank You Paul!
solar - that wouldn't be impacted by this
those blackouts aren't due to attendance issues, but viewing territory/rights
in that case Vegas was being deemed a home market for fox sports west which paid to broadcast games through the playoffs on their home market territory .... if the coyotes made it we would have had to watch Fox Sports AZ and not NBC/CNBC (they were using regional feeds for the most part for the first round and just broadcasting them to the national audience)
this will go away in the 2nd round as the only broadcast outlet will be the NBC stations
it's not different than watching the game during the regular season - that random wednesday night game in the middle of february that was on a FSN station will be the same as a round 1 playoff game
those blackouts aren't due to attendance issues, but viewing territory/rights
in that case Vegas was being deemed a home market for fox sports west which paid to broadcast games through the playoffs on their home market territory .... if the coyotes made it we would have had to watch Fox Sports AZ and not NBC/CNBC (they were using regional feeds for the most part for the first round and just broadcasting them to the national audience)
this will go away in the 2nd round as the only broadcast outlet will be the NBC stations
it's not different than watching the game during the regular season - that random wednesday night game in the middle of february that was on a FSN station will be the same as a round 1 playoff game
