Home› Sports Talk
Options

Should Cable TV offer a No Sports option?

MGLICKERMGLICKER Posts: 7,995 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Seems that half the money in the cable TV industry goes to fund sports programming.

My lady friend spends about $60 a month for basic service and has nearly a zero interest in sports coverage. Would be nice if she could dumped the athletic events and shave $30 off her bill.

Cable TV is a non essential and of course they can charge what they like. Many folks though are dropping cable for steaming services or for limited free broadcast TV of old.

Would like to see them expand the options for the non sporting enthusiasts.

Comments

  • Options
    itzagoneritzagoner Posts: 8,753 ✭✭
    no. preferably, a no Home Improvement, no Cooking & no Chick Flick channel option. image
  • Options
    MGLICKERMGLICKER Posts: 7,995 ✭✭✭


    << <i>no. preferably, a no Home Improvement, no Cooking & no Chick Flick channel option. image >>



    Good thinking. We could replace one of them with a 24 hour Munster's channel.
  • Options
    bigdcardsbigdcards Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭
    We should be allowed to pay for whichever channels we want and leave the rest behind.
    To bigdcards: "you are right" - cpamike "That is correct" -grote15
  • Options
    TabeTabe Posts: 5,927 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>We should be allowed to pay for whichever channels we want and leave the rest behind. >>


    A LA carte TV ain't the panacea people think it is. You'll have a LOT fewer channels to chose from and your bill won't go down much. Each channel will have to charge significantly more than they do now since they'll have a lot fewer people paying for them. You'll end up paying 50 bucks a month for 8 channels instead of 60 bucks for 100 channels.
  • Options
    MGLICKERMGLICKER Posts: 7,995 ✭✭✭


    << <i> You'll end up paying 50 bucks a month for 8 channels instead of 60 bucks for 100 channels. >>



    I would do it. Much simpler to surf the limited and much more important channels.
  • Options
    markj111markj111 Posts: 2,921 ✭✭✭
    The NY Times had an article on this subject recently.


    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/15/upshot/why-unbundling-cable-would-not-save-you-money.html?action=click&amp;module=Search&amp;region=searchResults&amp;mabReward=relbias:r,["RI:11","RI:16"]&amp;url=http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/cable+television/7days/

  • Options
    JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,216 ✭✭✭✭✭
    How about a sports only option so I could watch sports and skip all the reality shows?

    I would spend $20-30 per month to watch the local teams play, but am not interested in satellite at $100.00 for the basic and having to add on the sports package.

    I cancelled "Dish" and installed an antennae and watch for free. I miss the Twins and Wild but will be able to watch the Vikings. Not a Timberwolves fan, so don't care about them.

    Just my thoughts on the matter.
    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • Options
    MGLICKERMGLICKER Posts: 7,995 ✭✭✭


    << <i>How about a sports only option so I could watch sports and skip all the reality shows? >>



    That works as well.
  • Options
    LodiBrewFanLodiBrewFan Posts: 564 ✭
    I work for a rural telcom which has ventured into the iptv arena. You maybe surprised at how close a'la carte programming is to being. I also can tell how much of your cable bill is comprised of sports programming. The ESPN suite of channels is by far the most expensive portion of all of the programming.

    If sports were removed from your cable package, it would decrease by more than half. If you went to sports only package, there would be little savings. Some networks receive no fees from cable providers, they rely on advertising only.

    However, all of this maybe irrelevant in the near future. No cable network is future proofed from the pending onslaught of web based programming. For a telcom like i work for, to stay solvent, one must be able to deliver a reliable high speed broadband connection of at least a 100 Meg down and that may not be enough. A gig download maybe necessary to stay relevant. For those speed one gas to have a true fiber to the house.
    Scoreboard Malfunction
  • Options
    GootGoot Posts: 3,496
    I have basic cable and then use Apple TV. With this I get all of the ESPN programming and more, plus share a Netflix account with my brother. Also, NBC and Fox allow you to access all of their sports programming (NBCSN and Fox Sports 1) for free through apps that you can then broadcast through your Apple TV.


    I pay Comcast $38/month and don't see myself adding channels anytime soon.
  • Options
    TheCARDKidTheCARDKid Posts: 1,496 ✭
    It's just one opinion, but I think this emphasis on sports programming is a bubble.

    -Here in LA, there was a huge push for a lakers only channel on time warner cable. Time Warner spent $3 billion. The dodgers also signed a deal with time warner for a ridiculous sum of money.

    I think the cable operators are late to the party with sports. I.e. look at the lakers record this year. What happens after kobe and gasol are gone?

    -Also, online programming seems awfully "flat" (i.e. youtube or a streaming service). I wouldn't be surprised in 10 years if the cable numbers are down by a 1/3 or 1/2 of what they are now. Eventually youtube personalities, and people that want to get into media are going to catch up with the professionals on broadcast or cable. The media landscape is going to look awfully different in 10 years, although it already does.
Sign In or Register to comment.