---

CTEL08 wrote:

---

oufanindallas wrote:

---

CTEL08 wrote:

with all due respect, thats sounds like a  pretty unrealistic assessment of the market oufan

 

the vast majority of espns expenditures go out to the sports leagues whos games they buy the broadcast right to.

 

if the pay television market, for whatever reason, be it regulation or market driven, were to move to the a al carte model, they could only realistically raise the amount they charge per sub so much before consumers would baulk. 

 

less subs fees = less capital

less capital = less money to bid on contracts for broadcast rights

lower contract bids = more competition from the big 4 broadcast networks and other cable networks

 

the consumer has more choices, the sports leagues might have to learn budget a little better if their tv contract revenue drops. in other words, mack brown might have to learn to get by on $ 4 million/yr. 

---

And how is my assestment wrong.  Broadcast priveleges are sold in bulk.  The majority of contracts also include lesser watched channels as a requirement for a smaller amount, but are still required to be carried.  If all of a sudden it went to ala cart the networks would quickly lose a huge revenue source and they would have to make it up somewhere.  I'm not talking about JUST ESPN/Fox Sports, ALL networks would be effected.  Without potential viewers due to bundled deals with providers, the network wouldn't be able to sell as much advertising, without advertising, much less revenue coming in, without revenue, no shows, no shows, no network.

Sports would be one of the few that actually survive as the majority of sports fans would pay for their channels.  Other networks, not so much.  As much as I like to watch HGTV, DIY  and Food Network, I'm not willing to pay a separate price to watch them.  Same with ID which my wife watches, NatGeo and NatGeo wild, Disney, NickJr. Hub, etc.   Many would feel the same and the newtorks would seriously start to suffer.

 

Ala carte is NOT the way to go.

---

Welp, as i understand your post oufan, you pretty much said it all right there: you dont think most channels are worth paying your fair share for, so you think other people should subsidise tv networks for you. where i come from thats called socialisme.

 

if thats what ya want dont expect no support here. just personally one of the reasons i  served my country is to fight socialisme and all its different flavors like communism. i guess tehres a few thing you can argue where the that model works like public education or fire and police departments, but i sure wouldnt think pay tv networks should get to operate outside the free marketplace like it is now. 

 

---

I retired from the Navy in 2007 however nothing in my post suggests anything remotely related to socialism or communism.  I'm saying that with ala carte pricing you'd see the majority of the networks go away.  The problem is the "fair" price would cause the bill you have now to go much higher than it is now.  Since networks bundle channels together, I have the option to watch ABC Family since it's included with ABC.  If I had to pay to watch, I wouldn't since it's not a channel I watch regularly.

It's the same with HGTV, Food Network, DIY and the Cooking Channel.  They are all Scripps Network and are included in the same contract with providers.  Same with all of the Discovery Channels, and all the premium channels.  It's also the reason that when AT&T and Crown couldn't reach an agreement, Hallmark and Hallmark Movie Channel were removed.