Ravenwood - 10/15/03 06:00 AM
Last week, USA Today noted that sports lovers may be asked to pony up for such standard cable staples as ESPN and FSN. At issue is the tug of war between ESPN/Disney and Cox Cable company. With sports salaries skyrocketing, ticket prices and TV rights are selling for an all time high. ESPN wants to charge cable companies more, and cable companies don't want it to hit their bottom line. That leaves customers, like me, having to choose between paying extra or finding an alternative.
Now, if satellite TV was an option where I live, I'd have it already. Unfortunately, my apartment faces the wrong direction and satellite is not an option. (I had satellite in Ohio, and cannot express in words how much I miss it.)
Still, if faced with the prospect of having to pay $5 to $10 more per month for ESPN and other various sports packages on cable, I would probably opt out completely. While I watch my fair share of sports, I would probably cut back, or start hanging out in sports bars for my favorite games. It's not so much the money, as it is the principle. With cable rates increasing at three times the rate of inflation, if the two cannot come to some sort of agreement, I might just cancel the cable completely.
Category: Sports
Comments (6) top link me
I've had no TV at all since 1971 and don't miss it. That it was so wretched was why I got rid of it. Even the cable guys stopped calling eventually.
The medium has some presumption that you have nothing else to do, that's irritating and condescending. Radio assumes you're doing something else mostly.
Posted by: Ron Hardin at October 15, 2003 9:53 AMno cable for me. If it's not on network TV that I can tune in with an antenna, it ain't worth it.
Remember when TV was free??? And the sports were on that free TV. Now we have cable, which they charge you X amount (over $30/month) AND still have the audacity to nail you with commercials every 2 minutes. It's absolutely ridiculous to think that I'd be paying that much money to watch the same car ads that are on longer than the show is.
Fuck 'em. If it's THAT big of a game and it's on cable, I'll go to the bar.
Posted by: Jim S at October 15, 2003 10:52 AMWe already went through this with FSN here in the Twin Cities (with Time Warner Cable). Lots of attack ads on both sides (kinda like an election campaign), and then eventually some agreement was made.
I'm glad I enjoy listening to sports on the radio.
Posted by: Steve Gigl at October 15, 2003 11:14 AMI actually prefer to listen to sports on the radio. I'd much rather hear the local Hokie announcers than the national boobs who get the names wrong all the time.
I like watching sports occasionally, but ESPN could fall down the sink and I wouldn't miss it -- unless they were broadcasting The Masters or British Open, which I WILL NOT MISS.
A pox on all of them.
Posted by: Kim du Toit at October 19, 2003 1:51 PMNot only do we pay rediculous cable prices and watch way too many commercials, half of the games I want to watch are on Pay-Per-View. So, now I have to pay for cable AND Pay-Per-View to see everything. I agree... ...back to radio!
Posted by: Jake at November 21, 2003 3:03 AM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
