• 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

Verizon CEO: We Would Sell Skinny Bundles Exclusively if We Could

That is a worthless article. Verizon boss didn't give more than one pathetic example of a network (Disney/ESPN) prohibiting the company from including those channels in a skinny package (which is a lot smaller than 90 Mr. Boss and out of touch guy).

Any channel that cannot make at least a break even revenue/cost number on its own does not deserve to be carried. If I am CableGuy and NBC says to me "you can have NBC and NBCSN but only if you carry CableFlotsom1 and 2" I would go tell him to pound sand. NBC stands to lose a ton more revenue by the absence of their flagship and sports affiliate than a junk channel hawking chinaware or antiques. I can only guess that the cable company gets revenue in some form (kickbacks, discounts, etc.?) from the network but please Mr. Boss, don't BS me with the excuse that the network prevents you from making your own programming decisions.
 
landtuna said:
Mr. Boss, don't BS me with the excuse that the network prevents you from making your own programming decisions.
Click to expand...

You're aware that the relationship between program providers and cable companies is pretty contentious, with cable companies threatening not to carry certain channels and program providers like Disney or NBC running ads on their broadcast channels informing the public to complain to their cable channels. It's not pretty, lots of lawyers involved, and I'm sure there's more to the story than is in the article. But if a cable company has the opportunity to turn someone else into the bad guy, he'll take it.
 
Isn't that how Disney got ESPN2 carried early on? At least where they had ABC owned and operated stations they tied the carriage of ESPN2 in renewing the ABC stations if I remember correctly.
 
TheBigA said:
You're aware that the relationship between program providers and cable companies is pretty contentious, with cable companies threatening not to carry certain channels and program providers like Disney or NBC running ads on their broadcast channels informing the public to complain to their cable channels. It's not pretty, lots of lawyers involved, and I'm sure there's more to the story than is in the article. But if a cable company has the opportunity to turn someone else into the bad guy, he'll take it.
Click to expand...

I am absolutely certain you are correct.
 
Bill_W said:
Isn't that how Disney got ESPN2 carried early on? At least where they had ABC owned and operated stations they tied the carriage of ESPN2 in renewing the ABC stations if I remember correctly.
Click to expand...

In the Very Olde Days of C-band satellite I remember it being commonplace for retail programmers to allow subscriptions to ESPN only if you subscribed to an additional five channels (of a specific tier). I would not doubt there were lots of other tie-ins I don't remember. It didn't bother me too much back then because I never subscribed to either Disney or ESPN (and can't remember if or when I last watched either service).
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom