Comments on: Could the Dodgers’ giant TV deal be the beginning of the end for giant TV deals?

By: jimeejohnson

jimeejohnson — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 02:12:05 +0000

Guess the French are smarter than we thought: they invented “a la carte”. They perfected “we give up”!

By: jimeejohnson

jimeejohnson — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 02:08:33 +0000

Take it or leave it.

By: jimeejohnson

jimeejohnson — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 02:07:37 +0000

Every other night is enough.

By: bh0673

bh0673 — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 23:37:17 +0000

Bring on ala carte pricing! . My kids are grown so I could ax Nick, Disney and every other kids channel, I could dump ABC as well as all the Spanish Stations I can’t watch since I don’t speak the language, even the Networks like ABC, CBS & NBC are charging per viewer even though they broadcast over the airwaves. Ok I have to keep CBS, NBC and Fox for some sports but I still can’t stomach Joe Buck, at least ESPN finally got the message and dumped Miller and Morgan but I would dump probably 80% of the channels I have.

By: tuscaloosaguy

tuscaloosaguy — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 23:05:41 +0000

Only movie channel I really care about is Encore Westerns, but I’m not going to order Showtime/Encore just to watch that one channel. Be nice if we could order a la carte sports channels.

By: BigBeachBall

BigBeachBall — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:54:05 +0000

What does a la carte mean? Does it hurt?

By: joerymi

joerymi — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 04:04:50 +0000

Sports in general have the biggest television bargaining chip of all. Dish probably lost customers that wanted to watch Breaking Bad, but that is a minuscule fraction of what they would lose if people’s favorite teams aren’t on their carriers.

Look at the Big Ten. They rejected geographically restrictive conferencing for their TV Network. And while Maryland and Rutgers aren’t exactly football meccas, the Big Ten knows full well that the fans of these programs will never tolerate a cable/sat provider in their home without their team, and the providers know it also.

By: thebadguyswon

thebadguyswon — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 02:49:28 +0000

I’m with you and rates are increasing Feb 7 for DirecTV. Go figure.

By: thebadguyswon

thebadguyswon — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 02:46:57 +0000

This really sucks for everyday people. Lets hope the future of television is in for massive upheaval.

By: dcfan4life

dcfan4life — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 02:45:34 +0000

As a normal american all i can say to that comment is “well then move to the UK!!!” Sorry, its the answer to every comment that insults the US haha.

By: sparty0n

sparty0n — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 00:42:42 +0000

Why cant ALL programming be a la carte?

By: pandorasdadca

pandorasdadca — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 23:56:42 +0000

Awesome. I HATE the Ducking Fodgers and now I get to pay more on my DirecTV bill because of them.

By: hojo20

hojo20 — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 23:43:41 +0000

Yeah, like I have to pay for crap like BET…..I don’t need to see “Booty Call” every night.

By: deep64blue

deep64blue — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:04:07 +0000

I’m stunned that US Subscribers put up with this model. In the UK you have various “bundles” on top of the basic tier – childrens, music, movies, sports etc with the last two being much dearer than the others.

By: dcfan4life

dcfan4life — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 21:14:54 +0000

It be nice if a new cable subscriber let you build your own packages. Ideally you would be able to add every channel individually, with like a channel limit per price to keep the company in business. 200 channels this price, 300 channels this price, etc… Id love for this massive TV deals to create that domino effect if indeed it is a bubble.

By: koufaxmitzvah

koufaxmitzvah — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 20:43:15 +0000

I like how Time Warner is exonerated and that your wrath hits the Dodgers. Sorry, but the value of the TV deal is what it is: $8 billion. Nothing will change that. And the Dodgers didn’t put a gun to Time Warner’s head with the demand of $8 billion or else.

That you’re not mad at ESPN or The Cartoon Network or any of these other broadcasters who DO hold a gun to the cable company’s head says a lot about your perspective.

By: koufaxmitzvah

koufaxmitzvah — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 20:28:29 +0000

From what I gathered last season with the sale of the Dodgers, the main reason why sports team values have risen isn’t just because of dedicated sports channels, but rather, the DVR market which allows viewers to skp advertising. The marketplace has the idea that sports fans would rather watch their game live– and therefore be susceptible to the TV advertising.

Sports advertising should be like how it is during the World Cup anyway with paid corporate imagery around the screen border. That’ll cut the game time down and keep a trapped audience invested in the imagery. But whatever.

By: koufaxmitzvah

koufaxmitzvah — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 20:22:30 +0000

How is this the Dodgers fault? Blame Time Warner. They’re the geniuses that peddled the station to the Dodgers. The Dodgers just took the money. I get being upset, but I think the focus is off-base. The Dodgers didn’t approach Time Warner and say $8 billion or else.

By: jarathen

jarathen — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 20:20:00 +0000

I have read about the position these companies are in and the way in which they are hopelessly intertwined into a heck of a knot, and this is why Apple has been unable to really bust out with an Apple TV or more powerful box than the current little puck they sell (and I do own one). Someone has to completely change the game, and these conglomerates have too many fingers in too many pies to just yank them all out and start over.

Instead, they’ll all come crashing down in a cacaphony of mixed metaphors.

By: bigsexy2288

bigsexy2288 — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 20:11:52 +0000

Huge Dodger fan but if they are going to raise my subcription price then screw em I don’t want to watch them that bad. Sheesh it cost an arm for gas, another on taxes at the store, a leg for parking at the stadium, another leg for a descent game ticket and now they want my head for cable. Screw that they shouldn’t have made such a massive deal. Oh we’ll looks like I will need to get me a nice pair of bunny ears.

By: ctony1216

ctony1216 — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 20:09:58 +0000

Can anyone tell me if it’s possible for someone in the NY market to get Yankees/Mets games without subscribing to cable? MLB.TV blacks out those games in the NY viewing area.

By: craggt

craggt — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 20:00:06 +0000

The problem with this kind of analysis is that it is incomplete. Yes non sports fans subsidize sports channels, but I also subsidize people with kids by paying for Cartoon network and Nick etc. Everyone is subsidizing everyone else, thats how group contracts work.

By: giantssb42champs

giantssb42champs — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 19:47:27 +0000

Sure glad I have Comcast I guess.

By: sdelmonte

sdelmonte — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 19:43:04 +0000

I wish I could find the link, but I read an article recently stating that there is little likelihood of a la carte options from any cable or satellite outlet. Apparently, to some degree the industry really does need both subscriber fees and ad revenue to produce anything more expensive than Duck Dynasty. This would no doubt include the costs of 81 road games a season.

Which isn’t to say there isn’t also a lot of greed at play. But it’s not such a simple thing to say “prices are too high.” And I think that for the most part, people are either willing to absorb the body blows or to cut the cord entirely and either go for Netflix, etc, or illegal streaming and download options.

By: buffalomafia

buffalomafia — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 19:41:19 +0000

Dodgers won’t make playoffs anyway!

By: smoochytherhino

smoochytherhino — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 19:35:04 +0000

Government involvement isn’t necessary in that way. There is probably some antitrust involvement that would be appropriate seeing as the cable companies have just carved up the country and stayed out of each other’s markets.

In any event the availability of content over the internet will force cable companies to respond to quality and cost issues or it will destroy them. I can’t wait.

By: mattj425

mattj425 — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 19:33:55 +0000

This might be a stupid question — does the cost of the Dodgers contract get spread solely over their market, or does it get passed on to the entire nation that has Time Warner or the dish companies?

By: smoochytherhino

smoochytherhino — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 19:32:04 +0000

Cris E – I couldn’t agree more. I have recently canceled my cable subscription and I’ll never go back. A terribly overpriced product where I pay for everything and only want about 5% of what I have, not to mention the equipment is garbage and breaks down every other week.

Over the air TV + MLB and NBA packages + Netflix and Hulu = less than half of my monthly cable bill

By: cardinalcrazy

cardinalcrazy — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 19:30:11 +0000

@jm91rs – I think this is the point, with the prices being too high, you would see less subscriptions, and therefore the cable networks wouldn’t agree to foolish contracts totaling 8 billion dollars. Therefore, they would offer much less than the 8 billion dollars, which would be less for each subscriber, and the teams would make less money, and ultimately have less revenue to pay player salaries.

By: jrbdmb

jrbdmb — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 19:27:35 +0000

Note that the providers can also say “enough!” For instance, Dish Network has not picked up the new lakers-only RSN, and I understand that many providers are taking a pass on the new PAC12 Network.