Regional Sports Network Fee
TomDx
Enthusiast - Level 2

Why do I have to pay this fee if I don't watch sports?!!!!?  Verizon offers a {word filter avoidance} low tier package without

the channels I do watch... so there really is no choice but to payup!

1 Solution

Correct answers
Re: Regional Sports Network Fee
MeMeMe7
Enthusiast - Level 1

I just received my first bill after renewing my verizon contract, and discovered a charge that the rep didn't mention.  $2.98 Regional Sports Network Fee.   This was not on my previous bill (under the old contract.)  Why am I paying for something I don't use??   Just came from SanFrancisco.  Restaurants are tacking on a 1-4% "Employee Benefits Surcharge" to the bill, besides the 8.5% sales tax.   I used to be that businesses paid their own operating expenses out of regular income.  They worked harder to may a bigger profit.   Gotta keep those profits up!

View solution in original post

0 Likes
Re: Regional Sports Network Fee
Caps09
Specialist - Level 2

Verizon has no choice but to carry regional sports networks on Prime or above. Without that, the channels refuse to make a carriage deal. There is enough demand for local/regional sports that they must carry the channels. The "RSN fee" is Verizon's only way to call them out and expose how much the channels generally cost. We could see this morph into a 6 or 7 dollar RSN fee for the NY area, and maybe 10 or 12 for the LA area after the Dodgers launch their new channel next year. Maybe we'll all even see a $5 "ESPN fee". You're right though, there really is no other choice but to pay up for now.

Re: Regional Sports Network Fee
TomDx
Enthusiast - Level 2

What I don't understand is why they force people who don't watch sports to subsidize those that do.  Why can't they require people that want Sports to pay for the channels like they do for HBO & Showtime?  I find it really hard to believe that the majority of households want all these specialize sports channels.

Re: Regional Sports Network Fee
Caps09
Specialist - Level 2

Because without everyone paying 2 or 3 dollars a month, the channels would cost ten times that much. Mostly though, they want their channels to be available to the widest audience possible, and they apparently have the leverage to make that happen. Look back to the posts last fall when Lakers fans were losing their minds before Time Warner Cable Sportsnet was picked up by Verizon. TWCSN got their way with broad carriage and about $4 per subscriber. This is how valuable regional sports rights are. Of course, I'm only speaking of regional sports nets, not specialty sports channels like MLB, NHL, Fox Soccer, beIN, etc. Those are all on higher packages.

Re: Regional Sports Network Fee
TomDx
Enthusiast - Level 2

I understand what you saying, but according to that logic then why not charge everyone an extra $3 a month and then I can have HBO & Showtime for $3 a month instead of $30. People who want to watch Bill Mauher and the Sorprano's have to pay a premium fee, so why not make Sports a premium channel(s)?  It seems like there is more going on then just  FIOS or Cable wanting to diversify their line-up.  If making Sports a premium channel can't generate the revenue to make itself profitable, then I guess the demand isn't there... and if that's the case, forcing a take it or leave it surcharge (that is not a tax or an unexpected expense that the business cannot avoid) really amounts to extortion of the majority.

Re: Regional Sports Network Fee
armond_in_nj1
Master - Level 1

@TomDx wrote:

 ... according to that logic then why not charge everyone an extra $3 a month and then I can have HBO & Showtime for $3 a month instead of $30. People who want to watch Bill Mauher and the Sorprano's have to pay a premium fee, so why not make Sports a premium channel(s)?  It seems like there is more going on then just  FIOS or Cable wanting to diversify their line-up ... forcing a take it or leave it surcharge ... amounts to extortion of the majority.


"Extortion of the majority" is unfortunately not a new idea.  As they used to say in the neighborhood when I was growing up, "The fix is in."

There is a vast amount of behind-the-scenes activity on K Street and in corporate boardrooms that "John Doe" (i.e., you and I) will never see.  However this doesn't mean we're unaware of its existence and more importantly, subject to its penalties. 

When all is said and done, it still takes bags of cash (and undocumented workers without full benefits))to keep those East Hampton swimming pools clean, those limos filled with expensive gasoline, and those helicopters maintained and ready to fly to DC at the slightest hint of new regulation.

Never forget that even paranoid folks have enemies.

Re: Regional Sports Network Fee
bobbo527
Specialist - Level 3

@TomDx wrote:

Why do I have to pay this fee if I don't watch sports?!!!!?  Verizon offers a {word filter avoidance} low tier package without

the channels I do watch... so there really is no choice but to payup!


You are correct and I agree it does stink. But it is inescapable, ALL Cable/Satellite companies are now charging this  not just Verizon. I believe DIRECTV's is $5 a month. It's because Sport channel costs have become ridiculous.

Re: Regional Sports Network Fee
cascade545
Enthusiast - Level 1

I have gotten my bill down to about $144 a month fromover $200.  I purchased a RoKu box and I can get most of what I want through it.  Cable is slowlly finding out they are finally going to have to cater to the public.  More and more affordable content by way of Amazon, Netflix and the 100's of free stations made available through media boxes like this make it apparent to them.

Look at Netflix.  They found, with a relatively small audiences intrest, they can afford to produce a QUALITY show like House of Cards with actors starring in it like Kevin Spacey, and do it on the cheap. More and more content is conig available like this.  There is a pilot available on Amazon with John Goodman.  Jerry Sinefeld is making free content.  Give it time my friend, and the networks are eventuall going to realize the ride on easy street is OVER for therm!

Re: Regional Sports Network Fee
techguypgh
Enthusiast - Level 1

For those who say that there certainly is no alternative to paying the Regional Sports Network Fee I say this: go to your local electronics store and get a receiver for local channels and then find another provider for your phone/internet. I pay $4 a day for 400 channels (as well as internet) when I have internet on my phone (that's another $3.23 a day) and I watch maybe 4 channels a month for about an hour a day, or 30 hours per month. In other words, I am paying $4 a day for 396 channels that I have no time to watch because I am too busy working to make money to then turn over to my phone provider and Verizon. What is wrong with this picture? The bottom line is that this fee is a conspiratorial attempt to deprive consumers of choice. The freedom of choice is a basic tenet in the American system of jurisprudence and our culture. Forcing Americans to pay for something they do not consume (or watch) is criminal. When I called Verizon to complain about this fee I was told "Call Congress" and I plan to do so, but in the meantime, I am shopping around for other services. No American would pay for food they didn’t eat, or allow a payroll tax to be collected and turned over to alcoholics to provide them free alcohol, and there's no excuse for us to tolerate this. CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS TODAY - then cancel your service! That's the alternative to "paying up."

Re: Regional Sports Network Fee
sangs1
Specialist - Level 2

@techguypgh wrote:
Forcing Americans to pay for something they do not consume (or watch) is criminal. 

Nobody is being forced to do anything. TV is a luxury, not a necessity. You are not legally obligated to purchase a subscription to any television, internet or cellular service. When lawmakers start telling us that it's illegal to not have these things and that we'll be subjected to fines or imprisonment for not doing so, then you can start marching on Washington. So ease up on the rhetoric and let's stop making this out to be something it's not, OK?