[opendtv] Re: News: Fox News Wants To Double License Fees

  • From: "John Willkie" <JohnWillkie@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 17:33:18 -0700

Craig and I differ on this point, but I get my assertions from the Wall
Street Journal.

The average cable bill contains $5 - $6 per month that goes directly for
sports programming.  ESPNs get more than $5 of that amount.

And, those are historical, not leading, figures.

I've been saying for years that sports on cable needed to become a separate
tier.  Even cable companies are saying it now ...

John Willkie
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Barry" <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 4:10 PM
Subject: [opendtv] Re: News: Fox News Wants To Double License Fees


> I tried responding on this issue last week while traveling but
> freelists won't accept my web mail for some reason.
>
> I think I pay about $3 more per month to get ESPN which I never
> watch since I'm not a sports fan.  And that is a higher percentage
> of my cable TV than many since I otherwise subscribe to fewer
> options.  I'd like to not pay this.
>
> I really do not believe a la carte pricing would significantly
> increase the cost of cable for most people.  Some marginal
> channels would go away and some others would certainly not be
> subscribed to by many.  Some channels would become individually
> more expensive and some would become free.  But the competitive
> advantage of the cable companies is not really in a la carte
> anyway but in 2 way local big pipes.  That won't change.
>
> There should be some compromise closer to a la carte pricing that
> people can agree on.  But I'm home sick today and my head is
> fogged so I can't seem to come up with one right now.
>
> - Tom
>
>
>
> Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>
> > Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> >
> >
> >>John McClenny wrote:
> >>
> >>>The flip side of this is that we would pay more for the
> >>>content we do watch if that cost is spread over fewer
> >>>subscribers.
> >>
> >>I doubt that this would be true.
> >>
> >>Many networks would eliminate subscribe fees altogether if
> >>faced with the possibility that a significant number of
> >>homes would choose not to view their ads.
> >
> >
> > You're no doubt correct that the networks would provide those
> > programs no one is watching for free rather than risk them
> > not being broadcast at all. But the costs of running a cable
> > plant won't go down appreciably no matter what programs are
> > transmitted. So subscription fees would go up for the basic
> > service.
> >
> > What's more, the congloms that create all this content would
> > most likely raise the fees for the programs people continue
> > to want.
> >
> > Costs and prices are usually balanced very efficiently. I
> > would be extremely surprised if something as trivial as
> > going to an a la carte scheme would create any across the
> > board benefit to consumers.
> >
> > Bert
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
> >
> > - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
> >
> > - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
> >
> >
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
>
> - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
>
> - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
>

 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at 
FreeLists.org 

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word 
unsubscribe in the subject line.

Other related posts: