• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

For Late Night’s Trump Critics, the Escape Routes Are Vanishing

Don CT said:
The issue is you need to buy the highest package to get what you want. I don’t want most of what’s in the highest package.
Click to expand...
I did an analysis of my cable bill and found that over a third of the carriage fees I get charged are for sports channels and services. I never, ever, in any lifetime, watch any of those. I tried to get my cable company to remove "sports channels" and they said it was not possible and that "everyone wants those".
 
davideduardo said:
Your local broadcast TV stations get considerable money from local cable carriage fees. In my market, I've been told by corporate management of each operator that over half their revenues come from those fees. Their greatest fears are that, as folks cut cable, they will not have enough revenue to support their local news departments.

In that market, Palm Springs, CA, the local paper has gone from superior to dreadful in two decades. It is not even printed in the same state! But the two TV operators do lots of in depth and investigative reporting that is very well done, well produced and anything but superficial.
Click to expand...
Those fees are decreasing and that fact is why so many mergers are afoot.
 
umfan said:
Those fees are decreasing and that fact is why so many mergers are afoot.
Click to expand...
I blame a lot of this greed on ESPN. Everyone else saw the money flow in so they wanted in on the action. The problem is these networks got too expensive and people started bailing.
 
Or more options appeared and people do what people do—they make a wider range of choices for their needs. ESPN may not be for everyone. That’s obvious. But let’s also not pretend they didn’t become a huge business because no one watched.
 
AbrahamJSimpson said:
Or more options appeared and people do what people do—they make a wider range of choices for their needs. ESPN may not be for everyone. That’s obvious. But let’s also not pretend they didn’t become a huge business because no one watched.
Click to expand...
The issue is people that don’t want to watch are still forced to pay a lot of money for it.
 


Back
Top Bottom