Are you releasing your own Bob Dylan remix album, Butterfield? I'd like to purchase a copy to go along with my first edition of Sterling's Gold.
MBB Final Four to be aired on TBS starting next year, championship game on TBS starting in '16
Otherwise it would be a tribute album, right?
Ron Burgandy to listen to this new one.
Is this an effort by cable companies to force people to stick with the hundred-channel packages? Who in God's name watches anything on TBS? I couldn't tell you what channel # that is at my apartment. Why doesn't some company set up a deal where you pay a premium for the 5 channels you actually watch? Why, as a 26-year old male, am I forced to pay for Lifetime and OWN? It makes no sense whatsoever. Also, if that did happen, Delaney should be strung up in a Big Ten town square as it completely defeats the purpose of bringing in *shudder* Rutgers.
What does delaney have to do with this deal?
Delaney picked up Rutgers to get into the NYC market. If, suddenly, people can pick and choose which tv channels they want, the Rutgers pickup will only add the 12,000 hardcore Rutgers fans to the BTN rolls. Not 12,000,000 New Yorkers who really don't care about the Big Ten.
You're one of those "the world is against me" kinda guys, aren't you?
The idea that you as a customer would be saving money in a pay per channel market is a fallacy. If, for example you wanted ESPN as one of your channels, well without having every cable subscriber automatically paying in, in order to cover the contracts they have been handing out and to maintain programming, ESPN would most likely charge you like $50 just for that single channel. Smaller side chanels like fx and tbs would either cease to exist, or would probably be bundled up with their parent chanels, like they are now, so you can either pay $20 for just CBS or $30 for a bundle. At the end of the day, a pay per channel model isn't as appealing as everyone here makes it out to be and chances are anyone who wanted to watch sports would be paying at least as much as they are now for only half the channels.
While yes, the per subscriber fee for ESPN would increase. If TV was a strict ala carte model, I would have to think you would see these ridiculous fee's paid to the conferences start to hit a ceiling and come down (supply/demand). Right now there is such a huge supply (subscribers) that they can afford to throw buckets of money at a conference just for the right to broadcast a random Tuesday night game but if that cost starts being shouldered by actual sports fans, expect everyone to say f*ck it I'll watch it at Bdubs (if at all). I honestly do not think the demand is there for XX million subscribers to pony up $50 a month for just ESPN, and end up watching the crap they put on TV.
Best thing everyone can hope for is that Fox Sports 1 takes off and gives ESPN a run for the money (though it retrospect, they will probably overpay to get a "name" conference on board).
He loves it!
"Why doesn't some company set up a deal where you pay a premium for the 5 channels you actually watch?"
Are you suggesting that you want to pay more money for less channels or that cable companies should accept lower monthly payments becuase you only want to watch 5 channels?
No. But I'd be willing to pay $5 a month for ESPN, ESPN2, BTN, AMC, and Comedy Central. That's all I watch. $25 rather than paying $65 for an extra 62 channels I never watch.
That was the second half of my point. The reason no one allows you to pick your own channels like that is because the cable company wants that extra $40 per month from you. So until they are forced to change their tiered strategy, they have no incentive to do as you suggested. However, with the interenet, netflix, on-demand streaming, etc., it does look more and more like our days under the tiered system are numbered.
That wouldn't work, ESPN could not afford the contracts they have with only charging $5 because probably only a quarter of current cable subscribers would pay for it, especially considering the NFL is on network telivision
Because the cable/dish company gets the same feed of channels from their satellites at the same signal strength regardless of whether you want that signal fed to your house or not. In fact, the only reason they charge more to allow you access to "premium" channels is because they can. It's no skin off their back to grant you access.
In short, what you pay for bare bones is basically the minimum they can charge for any service at all. If your basic service is 80 channels for $50, you'd still get charged $50 even if you only requested and were granted access to a single channel (you MAY get a dollar or two break depending on that channel's contract, but not much).
That's all I watch. $25 rather than paying $65 for an extra 62 channels I never watch.
You mean you'd rather pay less money than pay more money? I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Here's your intro to TV -- the majority of the TV channels on cable are owned by like 4-5 companies: Viacom, Disney, Time Warner, News Corp, and Comcast/NBCUniversal. Lifetime is partially owned by Disney. So in your example, you're never going to get the 5 channels you want because Disney forces cable companies to bundle all of their channels together -- the ESPN networks, all of the Disney channels, ABC Family, Lifetime, A&E, etc.
And I know everyone always has this a la carte pipe dream, but it'll never be cheaper. The fact that all of the channels are bundled together keeps the cost of them down. So you'll never get just ESPN/ESPN2 for like $5 a month. If it ever went to a a la carte model, Disney would probably try and bundle all of their channel together for like $30/month or give you the option of getting ESPN/ESPN2 for $25 a month. Its the Costco model of media -- its cheaper to buy in bulk.
Sounds like the government should step in. What's a more vital interest to the American public than cheap, quality cable television? We didn't fight WWII for nothing people.
/s... But only kind of. The best thing the government has done in the past decade was the rule against commercials being louder than the actual program. Made my life better I can tell you that.
Passing a law to make the commercials quiter might be the best thing the govt has done in the last ten years. And I say that only half jokingly.
But as much as people want or think that the government should step in here, it'll never happen because the media companies make a ton of money with this model, and the cable companies have their own monopolies on the market and also make a ton of money. So we're just stuck with the current system and those lovely high bills.
With all due respect, and I mean with all due respect but your obviously not married and/or engaged with your "why am I forced to pay for Lifetime and OWN?"?
Because happy wife, happy life thats why.
/firsthandknowledge or THE_Knowledge
...there would likely be a we in what he's saying. With my wife, you could substitute out Lifetime and OWN for HGTV and Style.
Can't take a Final Four seriously on a channel that plays Family Guy.
So you're ok with watching it on a channel that shows Undercover Boss and The American Baking Competition?
I'm just trying to make a joke man! haha
I usually watch their weekly streatch of Family Guy while I am working on school work and what not.
Fuck that. Now I'll have to watch the Canadian idiots talking about basketball. Have to go get an American satellite now
You dont watch TBS? I guess you arent a Seinfeld fan.
What else is CBS gonna air? Some shitty re-run of a show?
Unless they're trying to prop up or boost TBS by forcing everyone to watch that channel
That's got to be it.
I know it was no coincidence that TruTV moved up to a higher tiered package right before the 2011 tournament in the Detroit area.
And self-defeating. Not only are the ratings guaranteed to be lower than on CBS (15-20% of households do not have cable) but even in this new world and changed TV landscape, networks still = important event, cable less so, especially TBS. Why not Tru TV while they are at it?
Actually, TBS is included in some of the most basic, basic packages. I know my mom has a package that is basically Network + TBS + QVC.
I don't understand it, but whatever.
The game will be played between Seinfeld and the Big Bang.
is easily one of the best ways to get pumped for a championship game.
Any comment in the article as to whether they plan on using the patented CBS camera style of switching to the worst, most nonsensical camera angle at critical times of the game?
I hope they keep the cool feature of showing the same play 20 times from different angles.
Oh, and I bet they keep the button they press to make Clark Kellogg go into "Gus Johnson" mode after a dunk or three.
This is the why I disagree with Brian, who believes Internet will force the ala carte cable subscription in the near future. Cable companies own the entire vertical market forces from content generation to delivery, and they have no incentive to move away from the bundle model. I have very basic cable and don't receive TBS. Stuff like this is going to force people to buy into more expensive packages.
SI.com has a short synopsis of the contractual side of the arrangement in its article (HERE).
According to the article, the main driver for the CBS-Turner partnership in the first place is affordability and attempting to maintain some sports properties on the networks, fairly similar to ABC shuffling Monday Night Football to ESPN. Essentially it is a contract option that Turner is exercising - the contract itself between CBS and Turner runs until 2024, if I am not mistaken, so you would see some games on CBS at least until then.
The article makes an interesting point though -
"As long as all cable viewers, regardless of interest in sports, continue to subsidize sports watchers, this is how things are going to work. Turner, which already had a very significant stake in this arrangement (explaining the ample use of NBA analysts in studio on their coverage and TruTV being utilized), can now use these additional properties as even more leverage for subscription fee increases."
It looks like cable companies are getting back at those who have "cut the cable."
Did you put on sunglasses as you posted that?
a Consumer Protection Agecy. What ever happened to that?
lest I have to find my sunblock for a trip to Bolivia.
Lobbyists happened to the CPA
As for moving the games, yeah... Ratings drop some, but cable subscriptions go up. Odds are CBS Viacom was willing to pay more for this deal to that end, because it isn't ideal from the NCAA's perspective in terms of tv viewership.
Aren't the nba finals on TNT
They get pretty good ratings so don't think it'll be too much of a issue