[mythtv-users] All clear QAMs gone in Portland, OR

[Michael T. Dean]

On 10/29/2013 07:56 PM, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
>
> On Oct 29, 2013 11:50 PM, "Michael T. Dean" wrote:
> ...
> > Unfortunately, I'm going to need ESPN in the very near future
>
> Need is not the correct term.  Air, water, food are needs.  The rest 
> are desires.  Now, I understand about household harmony, but they are 
> not needs.  Note for the record I would be very happy to not get ESPN 
> and save $2/month on my cable bill.
>

ESPN was actually getting an estimated $5.05/subscriber/month in 2012 
(1), up from $4.69/sub/mo in 2011 (2) (and $3.65/sub/mo in 2008), and 
that's just for the main ESPN channel. (The additional ESPN channels 
brought in $1.13, combined, in 2011.)  It has--by far--the largest take 
of any channel on cable TV.  TNT was second, last year, at 
$1.16/sub/mo.  I can't find the 2013 take, but I'm sure it's more than 
$5.05.

If you're a cable TV subscriber, you're being mugged by ESPN (and the 
Walt Disney Co), whether you watch it or not.  You're paying over $72/yr 
for ESPN channels, if they're in your subscription package.  The only 
reason that ESPN can charge so much is because it has an audience that 
perceives its content as a need, and it has contracts with the NFL that 
grant it exclusive access to a large number of games, and--most 
importantly--it has signed a contract with cable companies granting 
exclusive access to its content to cable or satellite TV subscribers.

Mike

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1290141-can-espn-sustain-its-fee-per-subscriber-growth
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/can-espn-sustain-its-fee-per-subscriber-growth-cm229538
http://www.sportsgrid.com/media/espn-cable-subscriber-fees/