ESPN and NFL Network, working on a deal
By Ben Drawbaugh 
posted June 21st 2008 6:14PM
posted June 21st 2008 6:14PM
The NFL Network's strategy to gain carriage on the biggest cable company's most popular tiers, caused quite a ruckus last year when many subscribers almost missed the biggest game of the year, in what ended up being a reverse preview of the Super Bowl -- and a perfect setup for the biggest choke in NFL history. It appears now that with some help from ESPN, we may not be in store for a repeat this year. Although no details have been revealed, it is being reported -- by the journal that require a subscription -- that the four letter network is in talks that may lead to it helping resolve the fledgling network with its struggles to obtain carriage.
We need A La Carte so badly.
Now instead of one network trying to lever more networks onto your cable bill, we have two working together to do so.
A La Carte will require cable channels to be worthwhile on their own, instead of being places on the system via deals by channels that are worth having.
You really lost me when you said lower demand means there isn't a reason for it to exist. How many great ideas started small and grew into something big? Why don't niche shows have a place on the cable system?
Is the current system fair to the guys who just want a couple channels and pay for 40+? Maybe not, but they could always choose free, over the air broadcasts instead. The fact is your cable bill helps pay for a wide range of channels that maybe you want, and maybe you don't. A la Carte will remove good programming from TV, Believing that it wiill just migrate into other channels and condense seems a little too hopeful to me. There's always a chance as more shows move to the Internet, it may find a new home there, but that's also going to be a bust if ISP's follow through with putting caps on usage every month, like the've already started.
Our courant TV services are certainly not perfect, but I'd rather help pay so that a few people can watch shows they really enjoy, then just try to pay for the channels I want and watch them start to fade away as subscriptions drop. Just my opinion.
A la carte sounds good in theory, but it won't work in practice. Who would pay for a new network? If there was a new network called "FX" would you pay for it? Probably not for awhile - meaning they couldn't afford programming and you'd lose out on the good shows that they've made over the years. Plus, channels with limited appeal would either be very expensive ($40/month for one channel?) or would just disappear completely.
It just doesn't work. :(
No, I wouldn't add FX. And no, I wouldn't miss those shows (although I don't watch them right now either), because those who make that content would indeed sell it to other outlets instead.
The current system doesn't work either. I'm paying for 4 ESPNs, NFL and NBA networks, and I don't watch any of them. I'm paying for Animal Planet, the Military Channel (actually, I think that's gone now) and plenty of more crap. Who is to say this isn't costing me $40/mo?
As to the idea that small-market channels would be expensive, they'd only be as expensive as the market would bear. If they try to charge $40/month, they'll have zero subscribers. So they are greatly incented to charge less.
In short, as much as you may like Rescue Me or The Shield, it's not up to me to subsidize the cost of producing them for you.
I actually don't watch either of those shows (or anything on FX) either. But my point is that if you go with A la carte, there will be NO new networks because nobody is going to subscribe to a network that has no programming. All you'll succeed in doing is making the current networks more powerful.
It sounds great in theory, but just won't work in practice.
(at least you didn't complain about the shopping channels like a lot of people do -- those channels actually have to pay the cable/sat companies to be shown)
Yes,that's right. There will be pretty much no new channels. Most new content will appear on existing channels instead (at least for the foreseeable future).
So instead of 300 channels running their shows 5 times a week I'll have 60 channels running each show once. As a PVR owner, repeats are of limited value to me, whereas freeing up bandwidth for better image quality or more channels (once the existing 60 become truly full) has more value. And my provider can save money by not having to pay to carry a lot of channels that don't have much content on them anyway.
DISH stands up to these networks, threatening to drop them if they don't prove their worth. They're the only ones. The other providers give into these content providers, leading to far too many channels with far too little content on each one.
Biggest choke....you are kidding right...stick to HDTV stuff and forget about commenting on sports...something you quite clearly know nothing about....a miracle scramble followed by a miracle catch....yeah choked...the Giants D line DOMINATED...but the Pats choked...gotta be a Jets fan
Name a bigger choke then a team going undefeated the entire season and then not only failing to DOMINATE the opponent, but to lose.
And the way I remember it, the pats were the last one to have the ball with time left on the clock and failed to get it done.
For the record I'm a Bucs fan.
@why not the LS2LS7?
Dude, quit your bitching, cancel your service if you don't want to pay for it.
I'd prefer to be able to cancel the channels I don't watch. And I don't think me expressing this merits someone else coming in and telling me to "quit bitching".
You don't agree. Great, state your opinion. But just because we don't agree doesn't mean my opinion is invalid.
But every customer has a different taste for TV programming. If only a couple customers watch a certain channel in an a la carte system, the provider could be losing money by broadcasting that channel.
That's right. And then the channel would likely go away. Any content on that channel that there was enough demand for would migrate to other channels. Other content would either no longer be produced or could possibly migrate to VOD, if the price issue is just overhead of distribution and not production.
There's no good reason for content to exist on its own. If there isn't enough demand to pay for it, then there's no particular reason it should be produced. So why lament its loss (along with the loss of having to pay for it)?
Maybe there will be a day when there is only one flat rate package that gives you every channel.
Oh wait, we have monopolies.