Rookie

Losing the Royals broadcasts

There is absolutely no excuse for Spectrum/Time Warner to be losing the Royals games.

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/mlb/kansas-city-royals/article143316334.html

If they cannot work this out, I will be among the many ,many customers they will be losing. Out of all the crap that is shown on cable these days, about the only thig I watch are sports, mainly Kansas City Royals games. If I can't get them on Spectrum, I will take my business elsewhere.

7 REPLIES

Re: Losing the Royals broadcasts

[ Edited ]

I'm with you, brother.  So far, the potential channel loss has been limited to the NBA playoffs, but if the two squabbling comm giants can't reach an accord, maybe all local Fox sports broadcasts would be affected. If I can't view my local Cavs and Indians, I am going to be royally annoyed with both of those telecomm dipwads. Local sports is really the only stuff worth watching on cable lineups, if you ask me, so I would wish a pox on both of their houses and look elsewhere for entertainment if they try to (edited) us viewers.

Valued Contributor

Re: Losing the Royals broadcasts


mboling wrote:

There is absolutely no excuse for Spectrum/Time Warner to be losing the Royals games.

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/mlb/kansas-city-royals/article143316334.html

If they cannot work this out, I will be among the many ,many customers they will be losing. Out of all the crap that is shown on cable these days, about the only thig I watch are sports, mainly Kansas City Royals games. If I can't get them on Spectrum, I will take my business elsewhere.


You are not alone, but would you be willing to pay HBO prices for this programming a-la-carte?

 

There is much programming that I pay for that I do not watch.  I am actually on Spectrum's side here... and would love to pay for just what I watch.  But alas, the content owners (FOX, NBC, Viacom, ABC Disney) do not want that.  They want to be in every cable home, and collect their per-subscriber fees whether you watch or not.  So they typically come to a "it's all or nothing.  You want ABC?  You can't have it unless you take 5 ESPN channels, FreeForm, and all the Disney Channels, too.  Same thing here with FOX.

 

For all the bad things about the Dolan's being owners of MSG, the Knicks, and the Rangers, they were one of the first to force those who wanted sports to pay for them as a premium service.  HBO and MSG were once the same price.  Dolan blacked out YES for two years until relenting to put it on the standard tier and have the Yankees get $5 / mo from everyone, even those who didn't watch.

 

How much would you be willing to pay, per month, for FSKC?  $20?  $25?   If only the people who watched ESPN payed for ESPN, they'd be paying north of $25/mo.

 

Switching doesn't solve the problem.  It just gives the content providers more leverage.

Listen to the Royals on radio.  Baseball is better on radio anyway.

 

 

Trusted Helper

Re: Losing the Royals broadcasts


dstoffa wrote:

mboling wrote:

There is absolutely no excuse for Spectrum/Time Warner to be losing the Royals games.

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/mlb/kansas-city-royals/article143316334.html

If they cannot work this out, I will be among the many ,many customers they will be losing. Out of all the crap that is shown on cable these days, about the only thig I watch are sports, mainly Kansas City Royals games. If I can't get them on Spectrum, I will take my business elsewhere.


You are not alone, but would you be willing to pay HBO prices for this programming a-la-carte?

 

There is much programming that I pay for that I do not watch.  I am actually on Spectrum's side here... and would love to pay for just what I watch.  But alas, the content owners (FOX, NBC, Viacom, ABC Disney) do not want that.  They want to be in every cable home, and collect their per-subscriber fees whether you watch or not.  So they typically come to a "it's all or nothing.  You want ABC?  You can't have it unless you take 5 ESPN channels, FreeForm, and all the Disney Channels, too.  Same thing here with FOX.

 

For all the bad things about the Dolan's being owners of MSG, the Knicks, and the Rangers, they were one of the first to force those who wanted sports to pay for them as a premium service.  HBO and MSG were once the same price.  Dolan blacked out YES for two years until relenting to put it on the standard tier and have the Yankees get $5 / mo from everyone, even those who didn't watch.

 

How much would you be willing to pay, per month, for FSKC?  $20?  $25?   If only the people who watched ESPN payed for ESPN, they'd be paying north of $25/mo.

 

Switching doesn't solve the problem.  It just gives the content providers more leverage.

Listen to the Royals on radio.  Baseball is better on radio anyway.

 

 


Seriously,

 

The only things that are not available from other competitive sources are live news and live sports.  The demographics and the markets have changed in the wake of rising costs of programing.  However, for many, live news and live sports are livelihoods for people's information and entertainment.  If you are not into news or sports, you can get movies and shows from other sources, such as the Internet and Netflix, at a far cheaper cost than cable, U-verse, or Dish.

 

Where cable REALLY holds the advantage over the competition is in Internet service speed.  The only other option from dish or U-Verse is DSL, and that is a lot of times, much too slow for video and data streaming.

 

Satch

Contributor

Re: Losing the Royals broadcasts


dstoffa wrote:

mboling wrote:

There is absolutely no excuse for Spectrum/Time Warner to be losing the Royals games.

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/mlb/kansas-city-royals/article143316334.html

If they cannot work this out, I will be among the many ,many customers they will be losing. Out of all the crap that is shown on cable these days, about the only thig I watch are sports, mainly Kansas City Royals games. If I can't get them on Spectrum, I will take my business elsewhere.


You are not alone, but would you be willing to pay HBO prices for this programming a-la-carte?

 

There is much programming that I pay for that I do not watch.  I am actually on Spectrum's side here...

 

 


The OP is absolutely right. What business did Charter have in engaging in a merger if they couldn't afford the channels.. There didn't seem to be any problems prior to the merger. Your solutions balance the budget on the back of the little guy by asking him to give up more and more to fatten some fat cats pocket.  I say those scheming millionaires need to start making some givebacks from all those millions they stole with this merger or let that stock tank.

Re: Losing the Royals broadcasts

Greedy networks and cable providers never seem to have a limit as to how far they'll push us. I'll leave if they stop FOX broadcasting.
Valued Contributor

Re: Losing the Royals broadcasts


Achilles77 wrote:

The OP is absolutely right. What business did Charter have in engaging in a merger if they couldn't afford the channels.. There didn't seem to be any problems prior to the merger. Your solutions balance the budget on the back of the little guy by asking him to give up more and more to fatten some fat cats pocket.  I say those scheming millionaires need to start making some givebacks from all those millions they stole with this merger or let that stock tank.


Well, after I posted, I read into it (the dispute) more.  This one is for the lawyers for sure.

 

It would seem that Time Warner Cable had a "better" price per subscriber to offer the Fox Block of programming.  When Spectrum bought Time Warner, Spectrum feels that they can pay the "most favorable rate" that TWC had instead of the higher rate that Spectrum was paying.  Fox says no.  Spectrum says, "We bought TWC, and the rates that go with it."   The TWC carriage deal was probably signed years ago and below the now current prevailing rate.  Consequently,  Fox sees a drop in payments becuase Spectrum wants to pay TWC rates across the board, while Fox wants them to pay Spectrum rates across the board.

 

Same issue happend last year with another content provider.

 

And it's not a matter of affording it.  The question is, will you as a customer going to pay it (the inevitable increase).  Us consumers will be the only losers, becuase in the end, we will end up paying more eventually.  Like the MLB players association, it is not in the best interests of the Players (in this comparison, the content providers) to have all their carriage deals up at the same time.  It's better for them (Fox, NBCU, ABC-Disney) to have their deal expiration dates staggered so that they play the "switch or else" game.

Valued Contributor

Re: Losing the Royals broadcasts


Satch wrote:

Seriously,

 

The only things that are not available from other competitive sources are live news and live sports.  The demographics and the markets have changed in the wake of rising costs of programing.  However, for many, live news and live sports are livelihoods for people's information and entertainment.  If you are not into news or sports, you can get movies and shows from other sources, such as the Internet and Netflix, at a far cheaper cost than cable, U-verse, or Dish.

 

Where cable REALLY holds the advantage over the competition is in Internet service speed.  The only other option from dish or U-Verse is DSL, and that is a lot of times, much too slow for video and data streaming.

 

Satch


Not cable per-se, but the content providers have the say over this coveted entertainment which is live sports.  The DBS and cable companies are the middle-men.

 

Sports fans are passionate, and content providers know this.  They will pay for their fix.  So they bundle it all and force it upon anyone, because they know if sports fans who watch sports at home actually had to bear the brunt of the cost of acquiring the broadcast right, they'd be paying 10-fold if not more for the privelege.

 

Eventually it's going to give.  It's just a matter of when.  I listened to a discussion on my local sports station not too long ago, when the host was taking calls on the various blackouts and the increases in costs (which are paying those pro athlete salaries).  The commentary went something like this, "Eventually it will all be pay-per-view, because if people continue to cord-cut, there won't be enough people in the pool left to pay, and these networks are going to take a bath on the programming rights they've bought...."

 

Heck, even TNT and ABC are complaining about NBA Players being benched because the rating for the games go down when the stars sit, and they need to refund ad dollars...

 

The players know the future is in data.  It's a matter of time before everyone figures out how to monetize the data.