stuckincincy Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 The fistfight continues... ESPN has shifted some college basketball games to its ESPNU channel. I noticed some NCAA football games were on ESPNU (University) last week - maybe that's been the case for a while...I was looking for the Syracuse - Miami(OH) game. "John Long, general manager at WXIX-TV (Channel 19), which owns the local television rights to UC's basketball games, said Wednesday that ESPN has shifted the game to ESPNU in an attempt to force Time Warner Cable to include ESPNU in its basic cable package. "It's all about ESPN and power plays and trying to get as many UC games on ESPNU so it will force the cable systems to put ESPNU on their cable system," Long said. "That's what this is all about." and "But Tilea Coleman, from ESPN Communications, said that's not the case. "Absolutely not," Coleman said. "The point of ESPNU is to be a 24-hour cable service devoted to college sports. We are within our rights to televise this game. The intent of ESPNU is to enable fans to see match-ups such as this." and "Karen Baxter, director of public affairs for Time Warner Cable, said Time Warner "would love to carry ESPNU" on its sports tier, a package available for an additional $2.95 per month. "ESPN insists on (ESPNU) being carried on our standard lineup, which means all of our customers would have to pay for it," Baxter said. "That would impact the price everyone pays for cable. We don't think it's fair to pass that price along to all of our customers." http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...280360/1062/SPT
nobody Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 Good - more room for professional sports on ESPN.
bubba248 Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 why doesn't T W but their stupid shopping channels on a special tier?
R. Rich Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 Good - more room for professional sports on ESPN. 789277[/snapback] Yeah, like professional poker.
Gavin in Va Beach Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 why doesn't T W but their stupid shopping channels on a special tier? 789302[/snapback] Because those shopping channels pay TW to run their shows, IIRC. But your basic premise is right. I'm sure every single cable subscriber out there could pick 20-30 channels they could do without or that could be placed in a special niche tier. Cable needs to find a way to offer more flexibility in their packages.
RJsackedagain Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 Good - more room for professional sports on ESPN. 789277[/snapback] Yeah, I hear Stu Scott is going to be the play-by-play guy for the following new pro sports: Lawn Jarts, Painting Your Fence, Pocket Pool and the Preparing Chris Berman's Combover relay. .... ESPN is a joke now. They can't even show a baseball game on a holiday any more - Memorial Day, July 4th and Labor Day we got jacksh!t for games.
stuckincincy Posted September 28, 2006 Author Posted September 28, 2006 Because those shopping channels pay TW to run their shows, IIRC. But your basic premise is right. I'm sure every single cable subscriber out there could pick 20-30 channels they could do without or that could be placed in a special niche tier. Cable needs to find a way to offer more flexibility in their packages. 789359[/snapback] The local AM radio talk show host once commented on the so-called "menu" idea. His contention was that it could be a double-edged sword, stating that for example, the channels I like may not be opted for, by many others. Then the potential number of viewers goes down - the channel cruisers, and advertisers want their speil to reach a lot of people. So they spend their money on other channels, and the one(s) I like go out of business. I don't know how that jives with existing collections of viewership numbers, but that's what he claimed.
Mikie2times Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 "ESPN insists on (ESPNU) being carried on our standard lineup, which means all of our customers would have to pay for it," Baxter said. "That would impact the price everyone pays for cable. We don't think it's fair to pass that price along to all of our customers."http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...280360/1062/SPT 789237[/snapback] Nice..... Well Baxter I'm pretty sure I have to pay for a bunch of channels I want nothing to do with.
Just Jack Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 Cable needs to go to an ala carte type of programming. That would definitely help them in their battles with DirecTV and Dish.
Chilly Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 Cable needs to go to an ala carte type of programming. That would definitely help them in their battles with DirecTV and Dish. 789668[/snapback] I believe that the TV companies demand that its not in their contract negotiations
cåblelady Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 Cable needs to go to an ala carte type of programming. That would definitely help them in their battles with DirecTV and Dish. 789668[/snapback] Do you realize how expensive ala carte would be? Yikes.
Just Jack Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 Do you realize how expensive ala carte would be? Yikes. 789671[/snapback] Only for those that want everything. Off the top of my head, other than locals, I could get by with only about 20 more channels.
Fezmid Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 Only for those that want everything. Off the top of my head, other than locals, I could get by with only about 20 more channels. 789675[/snapback] Yes, but if you want a specific subset, and someone else wants a different subset and someone else wants a third subset, you're going to end up paying a LOT more for the channels because nobody else is subsidizing them. On a smaller scale, it'd be like saying "I want to buy the local paper, but I only want the sports section. I don't want to pay for the Local, Business, Travel, and Lesiure sections." Well if only 10 people want the Travel section, it's going to cost $10 for that section (as an example) and since nobody's going to pay that much money, the Travel section of the paper disappears. CW
justnzane Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 Man you guys are slipping i figured someone would have made this wisecrack by now. "ESPN 8, The Ocho."
ACor58 Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 "Karen Baxter, director of public affairs for Time Warner Cable, said Time Warner "would love to carry ESPNU" on its sports tier, a package available for an additional $2.95 per month. "ESPN insists on (ESPNU) being carried on our standard lineup, which means all of our customers would have to pay for it," Baxter said. "That would impact the price everyone pays for cable. We don't think it's fair to pass that price along to all of our customers." http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...280360/1062/SPT 789237[/snapback] Isn't that like everyone having to pay for those stupid Spanish Speaking Channels, or Lifetime, or Oprahs Channel, or the Religion Channels, etc.
nobody Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 Yeah, like professional poker. 789331[/snapback] I was thinking about dominos.
Recommended Posts