I could be wrong, but I don't think FSN is a standalone network - it's likely packaged with FX and various other Fox-owned networks. If there is an out-clause, it would probably mean renegotiating the whole deal, which might be more work than it's worth.
The way providers bundle these channels in this day and age are coming to an end. Ala-cart network choosing is going to happen at some point. Hell, each channel will have its own app allowing you to purchase it right then and there.
doubt it. If a la carte existed, there would be only 2 channels in existence, ESPN and CNN. Everyone else would just watch their shows online. There would be no funding and thus no new tv shows because no one is going to pay.
People will pay if they want to watch. How do you think all the premium channels currently make money (HBO, etc.)? They still put out new tv shows... which, in fact, increase the demand for the product. ESPN and CNN are online as well. In the end, cable/satellite companies will be reduced to super broad-band providers, while everybody will have a smart tv/xbox/apple tv or some other app-based product that allows them to watch either live programming or on demand features. The technology is already there... now the current infrastructure just needs to be rebuilt.
Crane said he remains confident Astros games will soon be available to a majority of the Houston TV market. The Astros' regional network partnership with the NBA's Houston Rockets and NBC Sports is currently available in about 40 percent of Houston TV households and isn't on carriers such as DirecTV and Dish Network. "I think something will get done," he said. "We want the fans to watch the games, we're concerned about it. What we told people is we've to get a good deal for the long-term value of the team, which is the revenue base we need to support the team to compete with the Rangers and Angels and those sorts of people. Getting a good TV deal is important, so we hope it goes off on time, but if it doesn't, I think you'll see something shortly after that."
Producing television programs is extremely expensive. Yes Showtime and HBO do it and only those that want the channel pay for it. Under that model, each channel is $15 per month. Under an a la carte model, the costs will not be spread over the entire subscriber base. Therefore, the cost per channel will be significant. You would be very surprised how few channels your current bill level would buy. As for app based programming, the cost for the subscriptions would have to increase sharply in order to have the revenue generate a profit for the content providers who have to pay for production.
One result of this (I agree with Nick that we're headed there at some point) is a reduction in the number of stupid channels that exist. I think you could combine all the content of 10-15 crappy channels and still create 1 great channel out of it that people would pay for. You could charge more for the 1 channel that way while cutting all the production costs of the 90% of the crap that's currently being made to fill the 15 separate channels. In theory, it should improve the quality of programming because you'll have an honest market functioning to only support the good stuff.
I've talked to a guy that works in the technology sector that develops DVR's and the software that runs on them, and this is exactly the path that he said things are headed.
I somewhat agree, but it's a bit of a "chicken or the egg" situation with regards to which came first. I think one of the main reasons the CSN Houston side is putting their latest propaganda out there is specifically because of the negative fan reaction in recent months. Of course, I'm sure the anti-CSN side could point to CSN statements prior to this campaign, too. It goes round and round. I do think in general that the CSN side has a tougher PR angle because, as you said, they need the fans to actually do some of the work. From the provider standpoint, as long as customers keep giving them their money and stay quiet (i.e. the usual routine), they have everything they want. But that's just the inherent difference in the two positions when it comes to launching a new network.
All Jim Crane has to do on this front is simply eliminate the blackout rules for MLB.tv for local Astros games. Suddenly, every AppleTV, Roku, XBox, and PS3 will be able to stream Astros games to all non-Comcast subscribers in High-Def. More interesting is what I heard this weekend about AM radio - GM,Ford, and Toyota are considering eliminating AM/FM radios from future versions of cars, and instead replace them with apps like Spotify/Pandora/iHeartRadio over 3G/LTE. Unfortunately, iHeartRadio also blacks out the local Astros games on 790. What will be the online radio situation when that starts to happen?
Then satellite companies are screwed. They just can't compete with wired solutions for bandwidth, but cable companies also own entertainment companies so it is hard to just make a clean break. That is one of the reason why these RSN are worth it to cable companies.
Perhaps. But that doesn't make sense to me. I would imagine CSN owns all broadcast rights, and then licenses them to MLB.tv for out-of-market streams. I don't see why CSN wouldn't have the controlling rights to make it happen if they wanted to.
Carmakers aren't going to spend money on Internet devices and 100% of people aren't going to choose to pay for Internet in thier cars. AM radio will not disappear until mobile Internet is free.
Rights to the MLB product are owned first and foremost by MLB...that's why they make that announcement during every game saying that. Comcast is given a right to broadcast the games within a certain area...subject to territorial restrictions (including blackout restrictions). What Comcast owns is subject to limitations, similar to a licensing agreement.
