OT: Fox Sports 1 still w/o 3 major distributors

[kappy96]

Thought this was interesting enough to share...

Fox has "yet to cut carriage deals with three of the country’s four biggest distributors, raising the possibility that its August launch of Fox Sports 1 will fall short of the 90 million homes the channel is expected to have," according to John Ourand in this week's SPORTSBUSINESS JOURNAL. DirecTV, Dish Network and Time Warner Cable "still are negotiating to carry FS1 on Aug. 17." The fact that "so many deals are open a month before a network launch is not unusual in the cable industry." Though talks have been described as "amicable for the most part, news that some big deals aren’t done runs counter to the widespread belief in the sports industry that FS1 will flip a switch next month and launch to 90 million homes." SNL Kagan data shows that distributors currently "pay around 23 cents per subscriber per month for Speed." Sources said that FS1 is "being offered at 80 cents per subscriber per month at first, with increases that would push the fee to the $1.50 range over the life of a multiyear carriage deal." Distribution execs originally believed that they "would be able to carry FS1 at the same lower rate they pay for Speed until their Speed contracts end." But sources said that Fox has "not made that offer to any distributor that hasn’t signed new carriage deals." One of the main issues Fox is facing "concerns the atmosphere around the high cost of sports rights." Several distributors recently have "become emboldened by keeping sports channels off their systems." But FS1 "expects to be different, positioning itself as an alternative that could help distributors keep the high-priced ESPN in check" (SPORTSBUSINESS JOURNAL, 7/15 issue).

[kshoe]

Thanks for posting. The Wall Street Journal had an article on sports and cable yesterday that was along the same lines; cable providers are starting to refuse to carry certain channels and they used the Houston Astros and Rockets as good examples in that something like half of the providers in Houston don't have their games.

The run-up in cable costs, most dramatically in sports channels or channels that carry some sports is certainly unsustainable and maybe now we are starting to see the first cracks in the armor. Along those lines, I believe we are only a few years away from TBS and TNT controlling the rights to the Elite 8 and Final 4 instead of CBS. Everybody loves that all the games are on t.v. now but I doubt they will love it when you have to have cable to watch the finals.

Here is a link to the WSJ article (likely have to be a subscriber to read)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323823004578595571950242766.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection

[Bobby Metzinger]

Thanks for posting. The Wall Street Journal had an article on sports and cable yesterday that was along the same lines; cable providers are starting to refuse to carry certain channels and they used the Houston Astros and Rockets as good examples in that something like half of the providers in Houston don't have their games.

The run-up in cable costs, most dramatically in sports channels or channels that carry some sports is certainly unsustainable and maybe now we are starting to see the first cracks in the armor. Along those lines, I believe we are only a few years away from TBS and TNT controlling the rights to the Elite 8 and Final 4 instead of CBS. Everybody loves that all the games are on t.v. now but I doubt they will love it when you have to have cable to watch the finals.

Here is a link to the WSJ article (likely have to be a subscriber to read)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323823004578595571950242766.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection

Along those same lines in the north east corridor over the YES network and MSG with Verizon and Time Warner Cable. It's a freaking mess. I'm glad we have options instead of a monopoly, but it's getting crazy. The future of cable services will be "a la carte" options like Apple TV is slowly rolling out with HBO Go, etc. I don't need 190 channels. I need ESPN family, FOX Sports Midwest, YES, Fox News Channel, AMC, Turner Classic Movies, Big10 Network, MLB Network, Discovery and NatGeo.

[kshoe]

Along those same lines in the north east corridor over the YES network and MSG with Verizon and Time Warner Cable. It's a freaking mess. I'm glad we have options instead of a monopoly, but it's getting crazy. The future of cable services will be "a la carte" options like Apple TV is slowly rolling out with HBO Go, etc. I don't need 190 channels. I need ESPN family, FOX Sports Midwest, YES, Fox News Channel, AMC, Turner Classic Movies, Big10 Network, MLB Network, Discovery and NatGeo.

I agree that "a la carte" should be the wave of the future but I've thought that for more than 5 years. The cable stations have basically refused to allow providers to go that route as they realize that they make a lot more from everyone paying a little per channel than allowing people to pick and choose, even if they pay more on a per channel basis.

[Pistol]

My wife and I haven't had cable for almost a year and hardly even miss it, especially for $100/month. Seems like a lot of our generation feels the same way, when we can piece together the things we want to watch from other places. Unless they went to an a la carte model and we could get the content we want from one source instead of several, I doubt we'd ever consider picking it up again.

[Bobby Metzinger]

I agree that "a la carte" should be the wave of the future but I've thought that for more than 5 years. The cable stations have basically refused to allow providers to go that route as they realize that they make a lot more from everyone paying a little per channel than allowing people to pick and choose, even if they pay more on a per channel basis.

Someone smart will realize that more people are dropping cable for services like Apple TV and Roku (think I spelled that right). Like pistol, I haven't had cable for years. I have Apple TV and subscriptions to Netflix, AmazonPrime and MLB.TV. Anything else, I'd go to a sports bar and watch. My monthly bill for all of that combined is three times than what I paid for DirecTV or cable. But they'll start to do this when they rope you in on a free year of high-speed internet or something. Just watch.

[JMM28]

The cable/dish business is going to wind up going the way of the newspaper industry if they do not adapt. The number of over-the-air homes increased for the first time ever in the past couple of years.

Right now someone could put together their own cable package if they did not care to watch certain sports not available online.

Hulu Plus: $8/mo

Netflix: $8/mo

MLB TV $80/yr (blackout rules)

NBA League Pass Broadband $125/yr (blackout rules)

Watch ESPN (included with some cable internet packages)

NHL Center Ice: $120 (i think)

Over The Air Antenna - Free

For about $500 a year (as long as you aren't living in blackout zones) you could have better service than you receive from the cable company for $100+ per month. You have to wait a day to watch certain programming, but it may be worth it. And you may already do that with the DVR. The NFL and college sports are the big holes in that issue right now, but most NFL games are on broadcast television still.

It will be interesting to see who wises up first. Will the leagues (including college conferences) start excluding their internet/streaming rights from these deals along with the blackout restrictions? They could then sell these off as a package to internet users only. Will the cable companies offer a streaming option with a la carte options? They could charge a premium for most channels on their own, but would probably kill off a lot of channels as well.

This is a recent Harvard project: http://www.tivli.com/ I don't think this is the perfect solution, but probably the next step in the evolution of TV delivery.

[SShoe]

My wife and I haven't had cable for almost a year and hardly even miss it, especially for $100/month. Seems like a lot of our generation feels the same way, when we can piece together the things we want to watch from other places. Unless they went to an a la carte model and we could get the content we want from one source instead of several, I doubt we'd ever consider picking it up again.

The primary glitch in the "no-cable armor" is sports, particularly college sports, which is why I haven't changed yet.

[Bobby Metzinger]

The primary glitch in the "no-cable armor" is sports, particularly college sports, which is why I haven't changed yet.

I agree with you there, but that's when you call up a friend who has cable, offer to bring over a pizza and a 30 pack of Busch Light and watch 12 uninterrupted hours of Chris Fowler's immaculate hair.

[b.hayes]

I just moved this month and opted to ditch cable. I run Netflix through an AppleTV and have been watching some WatchESPN stuff (including Cody with Australia and the U19 team with future Billiken Jahlil Okafor). I figure I usually have to use the net to watch Bills games from Chicago anyway, so who needs cable?

[Pistol]

The primary glitch in the "no-cable armor" is sports, particularly college sports, which is why I haven't changed yet.

It's not enough of a reason for us. We personally have no interest whatsoever in college football, and other college sports don't get any air, anyway. College basketball runs from mid-November through March, so there's no reason to pay whatever cable costs x 12 months for 4.5 months of basketball. $1000/year to watch SLU games and Xavier road games on TV just doesn't seem worth it. I manage to get by with a combination of internet feeds, going to bars or people's houses, or getting to the occasional game in person.

[RiseAndGrind]

I just moved this month and opted to ditch cable. I run Netflix through an AppleTV and have been watching some WatchESPN stuff (including Cody with Australia and the U19 team with future Billiken Jahlil Okafor). I figure I usually have to use the net to watch Bills games from Chicago anyway, so who needs cable?

Did they finally sent an eviction notice after too many S-A-I-N-T L-O-U-I-S chants?

[STLfan]

I agree that "a la carte" should be the wave of the future but I've thought that for more than 5 years. The cable stations have basically refused to allow providers to go that route as they realize that they make a lot more from everyone paying a little per channel than allowing people to pick and choose, even if they pay more on a per channel basis.

If it weren't for sports I would have already dropped the TV service. But since I like sports (college sports in particular) too much to not have them I really hope a la carte TV does happen relatively soon. I put together a list of TV channels I would want and came up with 44 and 15 of those are HBO or Showtime channels, so just 29 regular TV channels. Right now I'm paying for U-Verse's U200 package + HBO. That's a lot of channels I'm paying for but not really using.

One downside to people dropping TV is that our TV providers are often also our Internet providers. If enough people drop TV to watch online all that will happen is the cost of Internet service will go up and the providers will get their money regardless.

[b.hayes]

Did they finally sent an eviction notice after too many S-A-I-N-T L-O-U-I-S chants?

They were pretty mad when I painted the floor to look like the hardwood at Chaifetz...

[almaman]

Someone smart will realize that more people are dropping cable for services like Apple TV and Roku (think I spelled that right). Like pistol, I haven't had cable for years. I have Apple TV and subscriptions to Netflix, AmazonPrime and MLB.TV. Anything else, I'd go to a sports bar and watch. My monthly bill for all of that combined is three times than what I paid for DirecTV or cable. But they'll start to do this when they rope you in on a free year of high-speed internet or something. Just watch.

Sports only thing you can't get anywhere else in home. News everywhere, all network, cable and premium content can be found on web now and if want to stay above board wait a year and it's all on Hulu etc. HBOGO is only available to people who have it in home version. The day it becomes available to anyone $ing up whatever they charge there will be a stampede at cable box drop off centers. hey Metz if you got time post how and what MLB.Tv brings you. rather hear sht from MBM s sometimes rather than having THEM tell me!

[Bobby Metzinger]

Sports only thing you can't get anywhere else in home. News everywhere, all network, cable and premium content can be found on web now and if want to stay above board wait a year and it's all on Hulu etc. HBOGO is only available to people who have it in home version. The day it becomes available to anyone $ing up whatever they charge there will be a stampede at cable box drop off centers. hey Metz if you got time post how and what MLB.Tv brings you. rather hear sht from MBM s sometimes rather than having THEM tell me!

I get all of the out of market games, so I can watch the Yankees games which is good, plus all the radio broadcasts. It's also fun on a late summer night falling asleep to the late west coast games, especially the sweet, sweet sounds of Mr. Vin Scully. Also, I can watch "condensed games," which are replays of every out or scoring play in the game, minus commercials. It's definitely worth it if you are a big baseball fan.

[cgeldmacher]

It's too bad Charter is not on the list of those not on board. It would seem like Charter, at least in the St. Louis area, could argue that whether or not SLU is in the Big East or not impacts what Charter can expect as far as viewership of the new network in the St. Louis market. Not knowing the industry as much as some others who contribute, I may be overstating Charter's interest in the issue.

[kshoe]

It's too bad Charter is not on the list of those not on board. It would seem like Charter, at least in the St. Louis area, could argue that whether or not SLU is in the Big East or not impacts what Charter can expect as far as viewership of the new network in the St. Louis market. Not knowing the industry as much as some others who contribute, I may be overstating Charter's interest in the issue.

Unfortunately, I don't think we make a big enough deal for Charter to demand a higher fee. College basketball simply isn't "must-see-tv" the way the NFL or college football or Cardinal baseball is. If FOX Sports1 want to command a premium in the St. Louis area they will find a way to get an NFL game on the channel or move a few Cardinals games there.

Even then, I'm not sure how much a dent it will make as UVerse stood up to Fox Sports Midwest 2 or so years ago and didn't carry 15 or so Cardinals games that FSM wanted to charge more for. They eventually reached an agreement but I didn't get the impression at the time that UVerse lost the battle.

[Box and Won]

Unfortunately, I don't think we make a big enough deal for Charter to demand a higher fee. College basketball simply isn't "must-see-tv" the way the NFL or college football or Cardinal baseball is. If FOX Sports1 want to command a premium in the St. Louis area they will find a way to get an NFL game on the channel or move a few Cardinals games there.

Even then, I'm not sure how much a dent it will make as UVerse stood up to Fox Sports Midwest 2 or so years ago and didn't carry 15 or so Cardinals games that FSM wanted to charge more for. They eventually reached an agreement but I didn't get the impression at the time that UVerse lost the battle.

And I don't think that Charter's footprint overlaps with most of the big markets in the Big East, which are primarily served by Comcast and Time Warner.

[Duff Man]

The entire cable TV business model revolves around forcing people to pay for content they will never watch.

A-la-carte channels/programming isn't going to happen until there is government intervention, and that isn't going to happen until there is an organized movement that exerts political pressure.

There are ways around it, but you're stuck using proxy servers to beat the blackouts (e.g. for MLB.tv) and that's a hassle each time, forced to torrent shows (which works pretty well, except not all shows get posted, and you can't participate in the twitter/recaps/water cooler conversations in the immediate aftermath). Soccer was always the easiest sport to torrent because of the international following and (up until recently) the low risk of spoilers in your local coverage, but most sports are difficult to watch like that.

Sports bars work great for big games - and for football saturdays/sundays, but it gets expensive (not to mention the toll on your liver) if you're watching every Cardinals/Blues/etc game in a bar.

I gave up cable when I got my first post-college apt, then came crawly back years later once I could legitimately afford the luxury. I wish someone would bust up that cabal but in the meantime we're stuck with no real alternative - and that's just the way they engineered it (also, it's no coincidence that the content providers got into telecom and vice versa).

[SShoe]

It's not enough of a reason for us. We personally have no interest whatsoever in college football, and other college sports don't get any air, anyway. College basketball runs from mid-November through March, so there's no reason to pay whatever cable costs x 12 months for 4.5 months of basketball. $1000/year to watch SLU games and Xavier road games on TV just doesn't seem worth it. I manage to get by with a combination of internet feeds, going to bars or people's houses, or getting to the occasional game in person.

Does AMC provide online viewing ala Hulu? Other than F/X, its a critical non-sports cable channel, imo.

[RiseAndGrind]

Does AMC provide online viewing ala Hulu? Other than F/X, its a critical non-sports cable channel, imo.

Breaking Bad & Mad Men are on Netflix. Anything else I'm missing?

[SShoe]

Breaking Bad & Mad Men are on Netflix. Anything else I'm missing?

Walking Dead.

Problem is that I'm caught up with those shows and would have to wait a year for them to become available via Netflix. Part of my enjoyment with shows like that are watching and then talking about them with friends, co-workers, and/or listening to Grantland-type podcasts that discuss them a few days later.

[RiseAndGrind]

Walking Dead.

Problem is that I'm caught up with those shows and would have to wait a year for them to become available via Netflix. Part of my enjoyment with shows like that are watching and then talking about them with friends, co-workers, and/or listening to Grantland-type podcasts that discuss them a few days later.

Ah. Walking Dead is also on there, but I get your point.

[cgeldmacher]

Unfortunately, I don't think we make a big enough deal for Charter to demand a higher fee. College basketball simply isn't "must-see-tv" the way the NFL or college football or Cardinal baseball is. If FOX Sports1 want to command a premium in the St. Louis area they will find a way to get an NFL game on the channel or move a few Cardinals games there.

Even then, I'm not sure how much a dent it will make as UVerse stood up to Fox Sports Midwest 2 or so years ago and didn't carry 15 or so Cardinals games that FSM wanted to charge more for. They eventually reached an agreement but I didn't get the impression at the time that UVerse lost the battle.

Your probably right. I'm just looking for any influence that can be wielded SLU's way. I would assume that the Billikens being in the BE would cause a lot more St. Louisans to watch Fox Sports 1, than if the opposite were true. It would seem like that would provide the local providers with reason to want SLU to be in the BE if they are going to pay more for Fox Sports 1 than they did for the Speed Network. However, the reality is that such issues are far more important to us than they are to cable providers.