What's with all these major TV networks being dropped from cable and satellite companies

Bobsyouruncle said:

Monopolies are another discussion, Sunday ticket isn't a monopoly. But I lived in Germany recently, the service is garbage and the prices are much higher in a country that requires a fraction of the cost to run lines because of its size, so don't buy the hype.

Click to expand...

For instance, at high speeds of 45 Mbps and over, the OECD report has the US ranked 30th out of 33 countries, with an average price of $90 a month. With phone and TV thrown in, plus some premium channels, these packages often cost $200.

Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24528383

I would subscribe to any provider who agrees to drop Fox and MSNBC entirely. CNN is incompetent but at least they aren't openly waving their pom poms for one political party or the other.

Rather have them wave their pom-poms openly and honestly than be just as in the tank for a party as those guys are but trying to disguise it through false objectivity. I'll take 19th and early 20th century media over today's media any day with regards to that sort of thing.

Ivan said:

I would subscribe to any provider who agrees to drop Fox and MSNBC entirely. CNN is incompetent but at least they aren't openly waving their pom poms for one political party or the other.

Click to expand...

It is sad that in your market area you are forced to watch FOX and MSNBC. Most of us live in areas where we are able to choose among the many, many stations covering news and politics.

I watch a fair amount of news. I can think of nothing worse that being limited to over the air network channels, or to a cable company that exercises its political views by censoring views that he doesn't like, or thinks too extreme. You would ban FOX and MSNBC. Others would ban CNN and network news. Where does this end?

mgteich said:

It is sad that in your market area you are forced to watch FOX and MSNBC. Most of us live in areas where we are able to choose among the many, many stations covering news and politics.

I watch a fair amount of news. I can think of nothing worse that being limited to over the air network channels, or to a cable company that exercises its political views by censoring views that he doesn't like, or thinks too extreme. You would ban FOX and MSNBC. Others would ban CNN and network news. Where does this end?

Click to expand...

I think they both are major contributors to the political dysfunction this country suffers from because of their deliberate misinformation and outright lies. They aren't news they are propaganda.

Deus Irae said:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24528383

Click to expand...

$90 a month average in the US sounds legit to you? I mean it's on the Internet. What does this have to do with TV and Sunday ticket?

In other news, government takes over industry and reports what a great job they're doing.

rlcarr said:

Google wants whatever will make the most money for Google, and anyone who thinks anything other than that, or buys any of Google's ridiculous self-serving hype about how wonderful it is, is hopelessly deluded.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Folks get their panties all atwist over oil company profits where the profit margins are ~10% at best. Wonderful Google makes over 30% profit margin and anyone who thinks that Google "plans" to reduce this percentage is out of touch. They will do whatever it takes to keep the party & stock price going which means that what you get today for "free" will cost you more and more over time to sustain that > 30%. Love the PR "Do No Evil" mantra.

FWIW: I'm an MBA and former telecom engineer/exec.

Deus Irae said:

We've been overpaying for decades, because of government sanctioned monopolies, among other reasons. Even today, the American user pays more for less in comparison with Europe, S. Korea and Japan.

Click to expand...

Sadly true.

PatsWickedPissah said:

Agreed. Folks get their panties all atwist over oil company profits where the profit margins are ~10% at best. Wonderful Google makes over 30% profit margin and anyone who thinks that Google "plans" to reduce this percentage is out of touch. They will do whatever it takes to keep the party & stock price going which means that what you get today for "free" will cost you more and more over time to sustain that > 30%. Love the PR "Do No Evil" mantra.

FWIW: I'm an MBA and former telecom engineer/exec.



Sadly true.

Click to expand...

Again no one ever claimed Google is altruistic. Google's desire to have as many people online consuming as much content as possible is completely self serving. Their selfish interests just happen to align with ours.

mgteich said:

There is no question that an inexpensive option is to go back to over the air antennas for local programming and use the internet for other content. It's been over 50 years since I had an over the air antenna. Now, as then, the best idea is to buy a high quality antenna, put it in the attic, and move it around to find the best reception.

My personal opinion is that most will come back to Direct TV, Comcast, DISH, Verizon or another bundled option. Much depends on how much you watch TV and how much variety of content your household wants. Also, most of us are willing to pay a lot for features that make watching easier.

Click to expand...

It's much better than it was when we were kids. In fact, it's much better than it was when I installed an antenna in my attic in 1990. It's better because we have...

- the internet for support and reviews
- tools like TVFool.com
- EPGs, DVRs, and other very cool toys
- a lot more channels

We have had no power for three days. Looks like we will be out until early next week. This is why I installed an antenna in my attic. It's great to have news and entertainment when cable is out. Initially we snaked a coax cable from the attic to one bedroom. Now, things are a little more sophisticated...



Granted, this is a hobby and I like to play with all the toys, but some slimmed down version of this plus a couple of streamed services is a lot more entertaining than 400 channels of infomercials.

Bobsyouruncle said:

$90 a month average in the US sounds legit to you? I mean it's on the Internet. What does this have to do with TV and Sunday ticket?

In other news, government takes over industry and reports what a great job they're doing.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what point you're trying to get at anymore, beyond you thinking that your one personal experience somehow overrides the actual generalized data.

Comcast internet, for example, jumps from 25 mbps to 105 mbps. For the 105mbps, the current price is listed at 76.95 per month, before all the taxes and applicable fees. You pay $114.95 plus taxes and fees, if you get the 150 mbps.

Note the final part of what I quoted:

With phone and TV thrown in, plus some premium channels, these packages often cost $200.

Click to expand...

For Comcast's digital premier TV alone, their site quotes a price range of $114.49 to $143.49, and you've still got fees and taxes beyond that.

The Triple Play bundle HD preferred plus (internet/phone/TV) runs from 184.99 to $190.49, plus fees and taxes. That's not even the highest bundle option.

The trouble with comcast is that it is difficult to get a basic, inexpensive package. As you prune services, they take away bundle discounts. The last thing their CSR rep said to me before I cancelled my service was, "You might as well get basic cable because internet alone is almost as expensive as internet plus basic cable.

wizwor said:

The trouble with comcast is that it is difficult to get a basic, inexpensive package. As you prune services, they take away bundle discounts. The last thing their CSR rep said to me before I cancelled my service was, "You might as well get basic cable because internet alone is almost as expensive as internet plus basic cable.

Click to expand...

What channels come with basic cable with Comcast? If it's just the local channels you're better off going OTA and using that extra 5 or 10 bucks saved towards say the monthly fee for a Tivo or any other OTA DVR that requires a small monthly fee for extended guide service.

Wheelman said:

What channels come with basic cable with Comcast? If it's just the local channels you're better off going OTA and using that extra 5 or 10 bucks saved towards say the monthly fee for a Tivo or any other OTA DVR that requires a small monthly fee for extended guide service.

Click to expand...

It's actually worse than that. First, the basic package is only SD channels. Second, you have to buy their boxes to get that.

Holy crap! That is bad!

AzorianPats said:

So I have Verizon FiOS for cable, just received an email from them saying as of today, all Fox programs have been dropped because of contract disputes. Not only that but for the last couple of weeks on the radio, I've been hearing CBS is doing the same thing to Dish network customers.

Now I ask WTF is going on? And this better not interfere with my Pats games!!!!!

Click to expand...

Well, you have to understand. The local stations are all franchises of CBS/NBC/ABC/FOX etc..
In certain instances, the stations are covered via the national contract and in other circumstances by a local contract. In your case with FOX, it is just a local issue. For CBS with Dish, it's the entire franchise.

And yes, it's all about the money. And typically, it's the stations wanting to be paid at a higher rater, though in some instances it's also where the stations are in the line-up (premium vs. included)..

mgteich said:

Perhaps there are attorneys on the site. As I understand the situation, there is lots of content that is illegal to stream (pornography, first run movies, and live NFL games come to mind). I am quite sure that the viewer also has legal culpability. For example, watching child porn is clearly illegal in most jurisdictions.

Click to expand...

Actually, it's only illegal to stream much of what you mentioned in the United States. Many other countries don't actually care what get's streamed. That is how people are able to watch NFL games, live, that aren't being shown in their area.

DaBruinz said:

Actually, it's only illegal to stream much of what you mentioned in the United States. Many other countries don't actually care what get's streamed. That is how people are able to watch NFL games, live, that aren't being shown in their area.

Click to expand...

Do you believe that it is legal for someone in the US to watch NFL games live online?

Deus Irae said:

We've been overpaying for decades, because of government sanctioned monopolies, among other reasons. Even today, the American user pays more for less in comparison with Europe, S. Korea and Japan.

Click to expand...

This is not entirely true. In fact, recent review found that many other countries charge MORE for their service than places here in the US. And it is only a select few in Europe that charge less.

What people also ignore is that you could fit the entirety of Europe, S. Korea and Japan into the US and still have more than 50% of the continental US left over.. There is that thing called logistics that people seem to ignore.. It takes time and money to upgrade all that copper to fiber..

I got a MBBS and I'm a former basic cable subscriber...somehow I'm so terminally bored all the time that I've upped my package to EVERYTHING friggin' possible...so I cut back on my illegal drugs and alcohol consumption...to 5 days a week from seven...

Deus Irae said:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24528383

Click to expand...

Deus Irae said:

I'm not sure what point you're trying to get at anymore, beyond you thinking that your one personal experience somehow overrides the actual generalized data.

Comcast internet, for example, jumps from 25 mbps to 105 mbps. For the 105mbps, the current price is listed at 76.95 per month, before all the taxes and applicable fees. You pay $114.95 plus taxes and fees, if you get the 150 mbps.

Note the final part of what I quoted:



For Comcast's digital premier TV alone, their site quotes a price range of $114.49 to $143.49, and you've still got fees and taxes beyond that.

The Triple Play bundle HD preferred plus (internet/phone/TV) runs from 184.99 to $190.49, plus fees and taxes. That's not even the highest bundle option.

Click to expand...

I don't know what you're on about either.

First it's about how the NFL is gouging people with their exclusive contracts, then you go into an article about broadband prices in certain cities, and now it's about bundled internet, phone, and cable from companies who don't own Sunday ticket.

Is there some relationship between Directv, and high speed internet from Comcast? Is there a reason to think the NFL would sell their product cheaper if everyone had better high speed internet? Looks to me like the NFL sold their product to a company that is widely available, and always has a competitor. I can't think of any reason they'd sell it for less that has to do with the cable or internet providers.

As for the separate point about internet prices, you can dismiss my experience as anecdotal, maybe it is. But in America people seem to think the grass is always greener in Europe. I'm simply telling you as someone who has been to both, the stories usually ignore certain details. I had one, and only one company that serviced my house. I had to wait 10 months for them to have a port for internet. Apparently there's only a certain amount per town. Many houses are sold advertising internet, because if you don't transfer the contract you get put back in the waiting list, which can be months. That doesn't get figured into the statistics but it matters. The only satellite option was Skye, a British company that was insanely expensive. The internet was controlled, you would get fined for downloading movies.

Even cell service lagged behind the US, 4G didn't exist anywhere I went. It's not all it's cracked up to be. The only people who seem to think it's better, or even good are people in the US who haven't experienced it. The Germans I met thought their options were s****, and I agree.