Not really. Lots of things that are important to a lot of people wouldn't survive if they had to be profitable on their own without subsidy or some kind of bundling.
Like what? Again, I understand there are a lot of niche shows/channels out there that have a following... and they'll continue to have that same following in an on-demand format. Those same people will be glad they don't have to spend half their cable bill on channels they never watch. You have to get the ability to stream from a cable company... that will never change. Channels will and can adapt. The technology is already there. ESPN's "$30 per subscriber" threat is simply just that. If they want to survive, they'll have to price accordingly. They'll also have to improve the quality of programming... right now, it's god-awful.
All kinds of things. In college football for example, half of the hundred whatever division one schools lose money on football. And the colleges that dont have football all lose money on athletics. What would colleges be like if only 50 had sports and the only sport was football? You could cut that number down even more if there weren't conferences that shared revenue from TV, bowls, and received public financing of stadiums.
you really don't understand how television programming works financially. Channels like amc that take chances on shows are viable largely because of the carriage fees they make by being bundled. even hbo has shown reluctance to offer its programming a la carte because, they need those cable fees
Carriage/cable fees still there... covered by the broadband company du jour that you still need to get any sort of programming streamed. Of course it won't be at the obscene level it is now (an across the board subsidy by every subscriber), but they should negotiate fees based on certain levels of channel subscription. I really don't care if it means ESPN won't be able to afford to have ESPN classic, or ESPN "the ocho" or any other waste of programming. They still show tape-delay bowling on certain weekends... they have more channels than they have quality programming/live sports to show. I understand the current model, and I think it sucks... there's reluctance all around to switch because of how much money they're making off the duped consumer that has no other options. HBO is ahead of the game. They've got all their programming available ala-carte now. They've actually put themselves in position better than anybody to sell their product outright to people who don't want to have a cable subscription, but still have broadband. As soon as it happens, they'll be ready... they're already a premium subscription service that gets money simply from subscribers anyways. Offering the channels online allows them to plug more advertising on the webpages. Netflix has shown that not only can you create a subscription based model separate from the provider service... but you can produce quality programming on it. I honestly don't think its as much a question of if as it is of when... this model will be obsolete. The technology available to make it so has surpassed what the cable companies can contain by leaps and bounds.
being able to watch the rockets on league pass is literally the only good thing about me having moved to alabama back in december lol
I'm in the hill country wsw of Austin & I was able to watch the Rockets on LP when they had their free pro-mo week last year. I may have to purchase LP this year. You should be able to watch the Rockets in Austin. It's hell being a Rockets fan in the middle of Spurs country isn't it!:grin:
Somewhat of an update... apparently the DirecTV RSN for Pittsburgh draws $3.50/subscriber?!? And CSN Washington gets $4.35? Spoiler http://www.theatlantic.com/business...-cost-more-than-your-whole-cable-bill/277916/
Seems that the biggest issue may be that the providers are already paying $4 per subscriber for FSN Southwest, and that was supposed to include Rockets/Astros. I can see why the providers don't want to pay another 3.40 when they already negotiated that deal with that understanding.
The DC media market is roughly on par with Houston, and local fan interest in the Wizards/Nationals is terrible. I've lived there. Granted, there's an NHL team too, but no clue how that justifies $4.35 on a proportional basis.
This may be a dumb question...can they not get rid of FSSW in the Houston area and just make a deal with CSNH?
They (FSSW) have a deal with the providers just like CSN is trying to get. I do not know how long it is but these are typically long term deals. At the time it was made I'm sure the FSSW people sold them on keeping the Astros/Rockets on their network, but the Astros/Rockets had other plans. To me the only feasible solution is to add CSN to a higher tier than just the basic package, at least for the short term. I would gladly pay $5 or $10 a month just for the channel.
Actually, I think the most realistic compromise is to set something up on a metro-Houston basis. It's the five-state "regional" demand that is the biggest issue. That's not a big loss for the Rockets, whose main markets outside of Houston are just Beaumont and College Station due to the NBA's local television restrictions. It would be a huge loss for the Astros, who need the entire region to compete with the Rangers (since MLB games are allowed to be shown), but the Astros aren't driving the ratings bus these days and likely won't until 2015. Perhaps the Rockets with Dwight could carry enough clout in negotiations to work a compromise as we get closer to the season? I don't think the "sports tier" solution will ever happen, because that's what the providers are desperate for all over the country. That's their way out of the mess they've made. And once a network goes that route (I don't think any RSN has ever had to do it), providers aren't ever going to let them undo it. I think the Astros/Rockets would go crawling back to FSSW and fold CSN before agreeing to this. There's just not enough money on an "a la carte" basis for them to compete with every other franchise that has the usual distribution. I think the best hope for all parties, at this point, is to find a temporary Houston solution, and then hope to strike a broader deal in a couple years if/when demand for the Astros picks up.
