Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator
   
   
    
  
 
Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR
Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 8 hours
| AIM: |  |
| | |
|  #1 Posted on 23.10.03 1912.09 | Instant Rating: 9.41 | Here's an interesting site. Cox Communications seems to be taking a stand on this one... I'm interested in seeing how this turns out for them.
http://www.makethemplayfair.com/
This seems pretty clear to me. Did anyone catch the ESPN press conference on CSPAN? I wonder what their side of the story was.
Still, interesting.
Willful ignorance of science is not commendable. Refusing to learn the difference between a credible source and a shill is criminally stupid.| Promote this thread! |           | Battlezone
Potato korv
Since: 27.2.03
From: Seattle, Washington
Since last post: 1625 days
Last activity: 10 hours
| AIM: |  |
| | | Y!: |  |
|
| #2 Posted on 23.10.03 2017.54 | Instant Rating: 4.80 | This could get very interesting.
On the one hand, there's NO way Cox pulls ESPN and FSN for an extended amount of time. Because if they did, I'd be looking to buy DirecTV stock real quick, because there would be a rush on satellite service when it happened. And it seems that Cox realizes that. They know that they're essentially powerless to these rate increases,and are taking it to the public.
On the other hand, if Disney and Fox agree to the tiered pricing schedule, it could finally lead to a la carte cable service, where customers only pay for the channels they want. And I'd bet people would pay more than they should for that. And if it were cable-exclusive, it could bring some people back from satellite. I mean, it wouldn't bring *me* back, but still...
Guru, you've mentioned before that you work in the cable industry, if I recall correctly. Does this rate increase that Cox is concerned about affect satellite providers as well? Considering the installed base of satellite subscribers is significantly less than cable subscribers, wouldn't it stand to reason that the per-customer price increase would be greater for DirecTV and Dish than a Time Warner or Cox?
Does this make any sense? Let's say you're at a restaurant, and you see a man stagger away from the bar and walk directly into the wall, mistaking it for a door, banging his face and falling down, only to pick himself up and walk into the wall again, and then again, over and over. Would you say to yourself: "I admire that man! He is loyal to the tactic of walking into the wall, in the hope that it eventually will turn into a door!"
No! You'd say: "He must be a Cubs fan."
-Dave Barry | CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス
Since last post: 7 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
| #3 Posted on 23.10.03 2126.39 | Instant Rating: 8.65 | This story actually broke just before I left for Minnesota, and picked up steam around the 6th... Click Here (news.google.com)
| Mr Heel II
Bratwurst
Since: 25.2.02
Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 7 hours
| #4 Posted on 23.10.03 2246.05 | Instant Rating: 6.09 | I find it unbelieveable Cox is paying $2.61 a month per subscriber (quote in CNN story).
If that's true, if ESPN accounts for 18 percent of the company's programming costs while being responsible for only 4 percent of its viewing (quote from Forbes.com), I wouldn't blame them, and every cable and satellite provider, from moving ESPN to the premium sports tiers. Let ESPN's revenues fall to the people willing to pay for those tiers.
I suppose it all falls into the direction professional sports in general has gone. Every cost on every level has skyrocketed to ridiculous levels, but people are still paying for it.
| Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator
Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR
Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 8 hours
| AIM: | |
| | |
| #5 Posted on 24.10.03 0002.20 | Instant Rating: 9.41 | I assume that Cox can't just lie about their costs - they are a publically traded company. Wouldn't the SEC zap them if they were lying? ESPN is only speculating about Cox - they aren't denying that Cox is telling the truth about the $2.61.
Check out this graphs on this page - the seem to back up what Mr. Heel was saying.
http://www.makethemplayfair.com/mtpf.cfm
Anyway I'm going to sit on the sidelines and watch this one - I just thought I'd share the link as a point of interest.
Willful ignorance of science is not commendable. Refusing to learn the difference between a credible source and a shill is criminally stupid. | Simba
Frankfurter
Since: 7.8.02
From: Boston, MA
Since last post: 1985 days
Last activity: 1593 days
| #6 Posted on 24.10.03 0747.23 | Instant Rating: 6.20 | Fox Sports has proposed a 35% rate hike in 2004 for Cox's carriage of Fox's regional sports networks in 11 cable systems representing about 3.3 million customers.
You mean I would have to pay 35% more for 6 episodes a day of the Best Damn Sports Show?
Reserved for future use. | evilwaldo
Lap cheong
Since: 7.2.02
From: New York, NY
Since last post: 2888 days
Last activity: 2669 days
| AIM: |  |
| | |
| #7 Posted on 24.10.03 1020.41 | Instant Rating: 0.00 | Originally posted by Simba
Fox Sports has proposed a 35% rate hike in 2004 for Cox's carriage of Fox's regional sports networks in 11 cable systems representing about 3.3 million customers.
You mean I would have to pay 35% more for 6 episodes a day of the Best Damn Sports Show?
Pretty much. I remember about 5 years ago my cable company sent around a letter breaking down what the increase was attributable to. It was nice to see but someone must have gotten hold of it because it was the last time that happened.
About 10 years ago I used to work for a large cable company and what Cox is bitching about is true. The popular cable channels have a grip on the cable companies. Channels like ESPN and CNN basically dictate what they want to charge. This is the reason cable companies are trying to inrease their size. They believe that the more subscribers they have the more power they can wrest from the programmers. If they have a significant amount of customers they can turn the tables and say that if they want to show their channels to their customers the increases will be much smaller.
Another trick the programmers use is to offer a new channel for free in return for smaller increases. Like ESPN offering to drop the increase to 7% if the cable company agrees to carry ESPN News for free.
mmmmmm, Breakfast (x-entertainment.com) |
| | | | | | | |
