No ESPN-HD on Dish Network either...

[Scott Greczkowski]

DBSTalk.COM has received word from a VERY high placed source at Dish Network that ESPN-HD will NOT be available on Dish Network at launch.

I am told that negotiations are still continuing to negotiate a deal which is "fair to our customers"

Still even with this word from this very high placed source there has been no official comment from Dish Network regarding ESPN-HD on Dish Network.

More news as we know it.

(c) 2003 DBSTalk.COM - All Rights Reserved

:hi: Hello to everyone who is reading as a guest! Welcome to DBSTalk.COM! We hope after you read this article you stick around to find out why DBSTalk.COM is the Internet's Sources for Satellite Information! Great to have you here!

[Lee L]

And I installed my 8PSK mod last night and all. I guess I jinxed it. ;) My wife is going to be pretty upset to miss the Womens Final Four because of this.

Funny that they cite the fairness to consumers when they think 8 bucks a month for the paltry offering of Discovery HD was fair. DId ESPN want $20 a month or something?

[Cyclone]

ahaha! WTF? I thought that since Charlie was too tight with YES that an Easy Deal with ESPN was hard to believe.

That 8PSK module sale was a tease.

[Cyclone]

Looks like Stephanie was right.

[Scott Greczkowski]

I must admit this news has REALLY surprised me. And I must say that I am disappointed with the news.

I have been working on this for weeks now, and have received lots of confirmation from both Dish and ESPN employees that ESPN-HD on Dish was a lock. I have been working closely with AVSforum's Ken H on this and his information was matching my information EXACTLY. Also other staff of DBSTalk has been receiving the same confirmed information.

I really don't know what to say besides I am sorry and I am disappointed.

We here at DBSTalk.COM have worked hard to earn your trust, and the information about ESPN-HD coming in was so great and all the information matched that we felt this was a lock.

On behalf of everyone at DBSTalk.COM I again offer my personal apology to everyone.

[Cyclone]

Uhm, hey scott where did the AVSforum topic go?

[Scott Greczkowski]

It was combined with the DirecTV topic.

[Cyclone]

Don't sweat it. Nobody would blame you guys, you're just try'n to help. I still wonder if its still up in the air.

[Scott Greczkowski]

Yes it is still up in the air, negogations are continuing (For both DirecTV and Dish Network)

I don't doubt that we will see ESPN-HD on BOTH providers. The big question now is... when?

[angiodan]

Just who is going to see ESPN-HD on their first day? Which cable operators are going to have it?

[spline]

Dishnetwork is always listening to their customers. That's why we have the most customer requested channels: NFL Ticket, HDNet, Yes and ESPNHD. NOT!!!!

[Mark Lamutt]

Spline, do you want to pay $$ each month just for ESPN-HD (notice the 2 dollar signs, not 1)? That's what would have happend. I hear Dish Network customers saying they want ESPN-HD now, but not have to pay $10 or $12 or $15 a month just for it.

I'm seriously bummed that I won't be watching ESPN-HD on Sunday, but I would have been pissed to have to pay another double-digit amount for 1 more HD channel.

[JeffCA]

Originally posted by spline
Dishnetwork is always listening to their customers. That's why we have the most customer requested channels: NFL Ticket, HDNet, Yes and ESPNHD. NOT!!!!

What a troll... Most people outside of New York City have NO interest whatsoever in Yes. And if you are trying to imply that Direct has some HD advantage over Dish, let me remind you that E* is the only one with CBS East and West HD along with Discovery HD and full time PPV channel. That's 4 channels E* has compared to only 1(HDNET) that E* doesn't have. So if anyone is slacking on listening to customer requests, it's definitely Directv.

[ibglowin]

Why should we pay more for ESPN-HD??? We don't pay any more for HBO HD or Showtime HD?

We already pay for ESPN in the price of the core package we subscribe to just like the HD versions listed above.

I would pay a buck or two (maybe) but that's about it. Especially in light of the fact that off the bat they won't have a whole lot of content anyway.

[Scott Greczkowski]

I will say that I would not want to pay extra for ESPN-HD as it will be an EXACT clone of its Standard Definition version expect the picture will look better a few times a week.

I must actually say that after thinking about this for awhile I must APPLAUD both Charlie and Roxanne ane their programming team for saying no to Disney.

I know on Sunday night my ESPN will be working fine, it may not be in HD but it will be the same game everyone else is watching. :)

[firephoto]

Perhaps ESPN has some cable companies in their pockets making deals with DBS providers difficult?

Just a thought.

[motjes2]

I am not surprised by this. It's business as usual. Enjoy the NCAA & NBA playoffs. Some of these games will be in HD and they will be free. Oh, I forgot the Mets home games will be on HD when televised by our local WPIX-WB and this is also free. So, there is plenty HD to go around and to keep us busy until the dust settles and E* and Disney agree...

[Ken_F]

Spline, do you want to pay $$ each month just for ESPN-HD (notice the 2 dollar signs, not 1)? That's what would have happend. I hear Dish Network customers saying they want ESPN-HD now, but not have to pay $10 or $12 or $15 a month just for it. This is not accurate. The $10 to $12 is a package price of HD channels. For example, one of the cable providers that announced ESPN-HD carriage said it would be part of a $11.99 package that also includes Discovery Theater HD and two HDnet channels, as well as more HD channels in the future.

[AkShark]

Originally posted by Ken_F
This is not accurate. The $10 to $12 is a package price of HD channels. For example, one of the cable providers that announced ESPN-HD carriage said it would be part of a $11.99 package that also includes Discovery Theater HD and two HDnet channels, as well as more HD channels in the future. :welcome: :goodjob: :smoking: :righton: :money: :money: :money: :money:


O YEA, I would pay $10 for that

[Mark Lamutt]

Originally posted by Ken_F
This is not accurate. The $10 to $12 is a package price of HD channels. For example, one of the cable providers that announced ESPN-HD carriage said it would be part of a $11.99 package that also includes Discovery Theater HD and two HDnet channels, as well as more HD channels in the future.

Ken, in this case, you are incorrect. This had absolutely nothing to do with a package deal or anything else. I think that ESPN-HD will end up in a package deal of some kind on Dish, but that's not what this was about. I'd really love to spill all of the details, but I can't at the moment.

[durl]

I'm with most of you guys on the ESPN-HD topic. I don't want to have to pay another 10 bucks or so just to watch a limited amount of games in HD. If DirecTV ends up putting together a "HD" package I'd be very tempted to subscribe IF the price is reasonable. I believe I'd be willing to pay $9-$10 for HDNet Movies, DiscoveryHD, and ESPN-HD. I really would love to have ESPN-HD, but it just irks me to think about it costing an arm and a leg.

As a DirecTV subscriber for 5-6 years now, I've been nothing but happy with the way they do business. I love the fact that they don't have many price increases (one of the main reasons I got away from cable) and I appreciate it that they don't just keep adding channels and charging more without considering customer's reactions.

[DChristmann]

Well, that's a shame. I'm feeling a bit relieved that I had dropped the coin on the 8PSK module yet, but I probably will before May 1. If it was a case of Disney asking for an outrageous fee, then I'm disappointed that ESPN HD won't be on DISH, but then, I'm not made of money and I wouldn't pay an outrageous monthly fee either.

Charlie takes a lot of crap for being cheap, but then, I look at what Comcast is charging for the same programming I'm getting, and I appreciate either $20-30 a month that I'm saving or the extra channels I'm getting, whichever way you want to look at it. At those times, I'm a bit more willing to cut Charlie a bit of slack.

Scott, have your sources told you anything about HDnet on Dish?

[Ken_F]

Originally posted by Mark Lamutt


Ken, in this case, you are incorrect. This had absolutely nothing to do with a package deal or anything else. I think that ESPN-HD will end up in a package deal of some kind on Dish, but that's not what this was about. I'd really love to spill all of the details, but I can't at the moment. I am not familiar with the specific details of Echostar's decision, but the fact remains that cable providers have announced and will be offering such a HDTV package come Sunday. One example is noted below.

As far as the size and extent of the ESPN-HD technical service fee, I can't comment on that yet, but if it was represented to you as being anywhere remotely close to $10/mo per subscriber, then you were misled. I would suggest to moderators on all forums that they get in contact with B. Burns over at ESPN, before drawing conclusions based on a very limited or distorted set of information, particularly that used by MSOs to justify their lack of carriage. Obviously, it helps no one to post mischaracterizations of what ESPN is asking for its HDTV channel.
Service Electric started offering high-definition channels on its local cable network in January, with a package that includes the three major broadcast networks, PBS, HBO and Showtime.

The company plans to package ESPN HD in a premium channel tier that will also include Discovery HD Theater and HDNet. The package will cost $11.99 a month.Members on AVS have contacted Service Electric and were told that additional HDTV channels would be added to the tier as well.

[Mark Lamutt]

I'm well aware of the carraige deals with the cable mso's. ESPN was attempting to negotiate a significantly different deal with Dish.

[Curtis0620]

Originally posted by Mark Lamutt


Ken, in this case, you are incorrect. This had absolutely nothing to do with a package deal or anything else. I think that ESPN-HD will end up in a package deal of some kind on Dish, but that's not what this was about. I'd really love to spill all of the details, but I can't at the moment.

Are these the same sources that told you that ESPN-HD would be on March 30th?

I believe them. :rolleyes:

[Mark Lamutt]

Nope. Different source from the other side.

[Scott Greczkowski]

I have been getting a lot of Private Messages and Emails from people asking me how come Dish Network has said nothing official. Some people have accused me of making up the news as I saw Dish Network was not listed as one of the carriers.

Because of the lack of "Official" news releases, I have decided to release the name of the very high official at Dish Network who verified ESPN-HD is not coming to Dish Network.

I have thought long and hard about releasing this information, and I have weighed everything and have decided to release the source of this information.

Believe it or not, the information comes from Dish Network CEO Charlie Ergen.

Here is a copy of his email to me...From: Ergen, Charlie
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 3:21 PM
To: Greczkowski, Scott
Subject: RE: No ESPN-HD

s,

we will be the hd leader..but we have to have a deal that is fair to our customers...it is easy to carry channels but hard to pay for them....we are still negotiating with espn but a fair deal may take time
c

Now Charlie knows who I am, and he knows our website well. Charlie knows that if I am told something is "off the record" I will not publish it. I believe however that this email was meant to be passed on to everyone.

Now as Mark mentioned there is another side of the story that no one has really heard yet, and I am unfortunately not at liberty to discuss these things as I do not have all the fact, but needless to say from what I now know, I must say, I salute Charlie Ergen for standing up to DISNEY/ESPN.

Part of the story is, if ESPN-HD was true HD 24 hours a day, the rate ESPN wanted would be worth it, however because for the first year there will only be a few shows a week in HD it is really not a good deal for the consumers, who are already paying for Standard Definition ESPN.

ESPN-HD will be identical to ESPN-SD except a few game a week will be in HDTV.

Charlie made a wise decision, I know many are not happy about it, I know I was not when I got the news, but then in thinking about it I realized Charlie did the right thing.

Now normally I do not name my sources, however with no official word from Echostar, and because Charlie knew who I am and where I was from and was not told this information I felt I had an obligation to everyone who may be wondering whats going on.

I thank everyone for the kind words of support, I take pride is investigating issues for our membership, I take pride in checking all my resources, and I always try to get an official statement from the proper departments or spokes people.

I look forward to bringing you more breaking news in the future, and rest assured, if I report it then I have researched it to the best of my ability.

Thank you all again for your support, and thank you for visiting DBSTalk.COM today.

[Cyclone]

I hope this guy Charly doesn't get in trouble with your posting his name. I'd hate to see him get fired.


But thanks for the update.

[Ken_F]

hope this guy Charly doesn't get in trouble with your posting his name. I'd hate to see him get fired.:D :D :D :D

Good one!

[Scott Greczkowski]

I actually thank Charley for taking the time (and the guts) to write to me with the truth. I have been getting the run around for weeks from other departments at Dish.

I think I owe Charlie a beer. :)

[Mark Lamutt]

I'll deliver it for you Scott - he's just down the street from me. :D (Well Ok, actually on the other side of town, but that's still closer than you.)

[RAD]

OK, last I heard Dish has more subscribers then Cox, which I would think would allow Charlie to put more pressure on content providers for pricing. If that's the case how can Cox offer Discovery-HD and ESPN-HD for $6.99 per month while Dish is charging $7.99 per month for Discovery-HD alone? This to me makes it look like Charlie isn't the great savior of the masses that every one makes him out to be.

Since it looks like ESPN-HD would be an ala cart offering why can't Dish just put it out there, say here's the price and let his customers decide if they want it or not? If the price is too high folks won't sign up for it and Charlie can go back to Disney/ESPN and show him the poor penetration rate.

Scott mentions that ESPN-HD isn't a full time HD content channel. That's true but look at Discovery-HD, how much new, never shown before, content is on it every month, I would guess less, or very close to what ESPN-HD is offering to start with.

Sorry, I guess I'm just sick and tired of corporations knowing what's best for me, let me decide, it's called freedom of choice, of which I have none now concerning this channel.

[Cyclone]

I also heard back from Charlie.

From: Ergen, Charlie
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 5:38 PM
To: Cyclone
Subject: RE: Gimma ESPN-HD Now Biach!

c,

mad props to east coast homies. i want to thank you for your numerous and continuous suggestions for dish network. while we appreciate them, we of course can not implement all of them, nor would it possible to. hdtv is a priority here at dish network and we will be the leader in hdtv. but we will not let that mouse put us over a barrell. i won't let them reem my subs, thats my job. ha ha. j/k. they'll come back, they always do. so keep a ear out.

btw, legal got back to me. an all "jello wrestling network" could not be considered a public interest channel, even without commercials. sorry for that bad news the fcc has its rulez. still ppv is not out of the question.

have you seen that pic with the fat girl on the jet lately? man that is funny.

c

I forot to ask him about EWTN-HD. Maybe next time. :D

[Martyva]

Cox owns Discovery. As a company, it's in their best interest to get that channel on their systems, even at bargain basement prices. The cost of Discovery to the providers is about $4 per sub. That translates to a minimum of about $8 per sub for the providers.

[Richard King]

Sorry, I guess I'm just sick and tired of corporations knowing what's best for me, let me decide, it's called freedom of choice, of which I have none now concerning this channel.Corporations do what is best for them. If they didn't they wouldn't be around for long. If the brains at Echostar feel that they can't get enough viewers to justify the large transponder space occupied by an HDTV channel (that is, make a profit) they are not going to provide it.

[RAD]

Originally posted by Rking401
Corporations do what is best for them. If they didn't they wouldn't be around for long. If the brains at Echostar feel that they can't get enough viewers to justify the large transponder space occupied by an HDTV channel (that is, make a profit) they are not going to provide it.

Corporations also need to listen to what their customers want, or they won't be around for long. If they really wanted to increase their profits, get rid of the PPV channel or put more movies on it that folks would order (I've had Dish for 2 years and not once have ordered a PPV HD movie). Or get rid of the demo channel, they don't have it on the 148 slot so it can't be that important. Or if they want to keep them both that bad, change them to 8PSK which would still keep both available making space for ESPN-HD without taking anymore transponder space.

Also, how the heck does Dish know how many views they would or wouldn't get to order ESPN? If they looked at the web sites that cover HD subjects they'd see there's a lot of interest in this channel. Do they survey their customers, I know the folks that I know of that have Dish STB's that can get HD have never been contacted by Dish for their views.

Sorry, I'm just tired of hearing about how Charlie's doing what's best for his customers, cause if he did we'd be able to tune in ESPN-HD tomorrow on Dish.

[Richard King]

Also, how the heck does Dish know how many views they would or wouldn't get to order ESPN?I have a feeling that they have a better idea of how many people would sign up for any particular service than you or I or anyone else on this site.

Sorry, I'm just tired of hearing about how Charlie's doing what's best for his customers, cause if he did we'd be able to tune in ESPN-HD tomorrow on Dish.ACtually, he is doing best for this customer by keeping it off. I have no interest in ESPN alone, much less ESPN-HD.

[alv]

Rad it is not an issue of satellite space, just pricing.

Also for all how say that most of the channel will be in SD. I am pretty sure the SD content will look much better on the HD channel, HBO, Showtime and my locals sure do.

[RAD]

Originally posted by alv
Rad it is not an issue of satellite space, just pricing.



Again, I ask, if this will be an ala cart offering (aka everyone in Dish 50 or higher won't automatically get it) what's the big deal? If ESPN prices their product too high folks won't purchase it and they'll get the message. But Dish isn't giving their consumers a chance to decide on their own, Charlie's making that decision for us.

Now if this was a case of the ESPN-SD channel wanting a large price increase that would effect everyone on Dish that's another story, and I applaud Charlie for trying to keep those prices down.

[dfergie]

So, maybe espn should be the ones taking the heat, and not Dish networks and Direct tv.

[Richard King]

Again, I ask, if this will be an ala cart offering (aka everyone in Dish 50 or higher won't automatically get it) what's the big deal?The "big deal" is that if Dish doesn't get enough business on an ala cart basis or any other basis to cover the costs of the channel (including the uplink equipment and space, space on the satellite, etc., etc.) then they shouldn't carry the channel. The big shots at Dish have a better feeling for this than you or I have and I am sure are basing their decision on facts that they are aware of. To not carry a channel that they felt would be popular AND profitable would not be doing the best they can for their shareholders.

[gpflepsen]

Charlie's not much for punctuation, is he? :)

[Cyclone]

He avoids the shift key and full names. hehe. Still this is the internet and I've seen much worse. How many CEOs personally write emails to folks like Scott? Charlie's ok in my book.

[Jerry 42]

Mr Greczkowski et al

I do not hate Dish or its mgt. I have been a customer for a very long time. I have 2 6000 w/upgrade and I live in a white area so other may feel differently (certainly if they have OTA option). But I really think Dish is missing the boat on HDTV. Yes they offer more HD than some other sources but I believe that Discovery HD is not as big a selling point to current and new customers as HD sports would be.

Other have pointed out they E* knows its business - certainly better than I do - but you you really want/need a 921 for Discovery HD or do you want it for sports e.g. football and movies and scripted programs. Thanks to CBS and Dish I will see the Masters in HD. I for one would like more HD sports to justify the cost of a 921 .

D* needs keep it's price points but if that is the case it can charge extra for these HD feeds and see if it works - it does charge $ 2 more for HD ppv. Dish HDTV info channel says they are the leader in HDTV - are they?

Again I do not hate E* or Charlie but I am not a cheerleader for them either. Too many promises that do not happen or happen after long and repeated delays. Charlie is a very good salesman but I believe he and his company fall short in some areas. As I have said in other posts E* mgt needs to get the message.

Mr. G, I am sure your earlier posts on ESPN HD were done in all honestly based on the best info from E* (perhaps from himself) but that just proves the above. Anyway thank for this site.

[Mark Lamutt]

Would you guys really have rushed out and signed up for ESPN-HD for $14.99 a month? Or $12.99 a month? I want ESPN-HD every bit as much as most of you do, but I would have been really hard pressed to pay another $13 or $15 a month for 1 channel. Especially when the cable cos are charging $5 a month for the same thing. The price wasn't driven by Dish... But, of course, the messages would have been how Charlie is a greedy SOB gouging his customers like he does with DHD.

The fact is that Charlie knows very well how upset people have been having to pay $8 a month for DHD. What do you do when you are in a no-win situation? Especially when you are all set to go 4 days before launch and then Disney walks away from the agreement that was in place and demands the $$ price from each subscriber to recoup some of their start up cost?

[Scott Greczkowski]

Again, I do think the blame needs to shift more to ESPN/DISNEY then eaither DBS provider (or any MAJOR cable system)

This channel is the most exciting thing to come to HD, so the question is why is NO ONE carrying it? Yesterdays launch was only seen on ONE cable system in the US and that Cable system was in Las Vegas. Why do you think none of the big fish are on the line for ESPN-HD?

Trust me they ALL want ESPN-HD!

From what I understand, origionally ESPN-HD was supposed to be free to anyone who carried the ESPN Package, ESPN also wanted ESPN to be provided free to the consumer in whatever package ESPN was in.

Then from what I understand a few weeks (days?) ago when it came down to signing contracts the folks at Disney decided they want to recoop some of their expenses of starting the channel and decided they wanted to charge for ESPN-HD.

Again since 99% of whats currently on ESPN-HD is STANDARD DEFINITION its not worth it to pay whatever Disney wants for a mirror of a channel for which we all already pay for.

Perhaps if 50% or more on ESPN-HD was in HD it would be worth it.

I stand behind Charlie, Behind Roxanne and behind each and every cable operator who has stood up to Disney and said "NO"

As a HDTV owner I want as much HDTV as I can get. But I don't want to be nickled and dimed to death for each new HD channel that comes online.

So people have emailed me and taken offense at my stance saying if I say no and Charlie says no then perhaps we just might kill HDTV. I say hogwash, its these evil greedy companies who want customers to pay through the nose who will kill HDTV. Its time we nip this pay for HD bug now and I am happy to see a majority of the cable systems and DBS providers are indeed standing up now and are saying NO.

[Doug E]

And I say RIGHT ON Scott. You are making the most sense here and I agree 100%

[Mike123abc]

It is important that cable/DBS companies stand up now. As more and more companies come online with new HDTV channels they need to see that they cannot just charge whatever they want for them. If they see they cannot charge a ton, they will work to keep costs down and set it up in a way that is profitable for them at a lower cost.

Who wants to pay $100/month extra for the top 10 channels in HDTV? Now if it was $10/month extra most would probably go for it (they get $1 for the HDTV plus payment for the std def version too).

[Richard King]

that Cable system was in Las Vegas. And that system is probably only on because of the sports betting in the casinos.

[Jerry 42]

Scott, Mark et al

This is my last post on the subject because I do not want to see this become a personal debate.

I know there are options available if E* wantes to to live up to its tag line "the leader in HDTV." How is the situation for ABC & NBC HD going - nothing said in a long time.

I do not believe E* is the bad guy in this matter. I know Micheal E. and he is not an easy guy to deal with on any level.
Yes I would pay $ 14.99 a month for ESPN HD but I do not think it is or should be the answer.

My posts were / are intended to get everyone to make it clear to E* that if they want to claim to be the leader in HDTV then they should be providing more HD channels, ESPN HD is just the current topic.

Again, thank you for the chance to vent on your site. Now I will go back to producing shows (yes they are in HD format).

[Ken_F]

Mark and Scott,

Would you guys really have rushed out and signed up for ESPN-HD for $14.99 a month? Or $12.99 a month? I want ESPN-HD every bit as much as most of you do, but I would have been really hard pressed to pay another $13 or $15 a month for 1 channel. Especially when the cable cos are charging $5 a month for the same thing.I would urge members to be very careful about posting biased statements from Dish or DirecTV that are used to justify the lack of carriage to unhappy customers. The proposed per customer charge for Dish and DirecTV is no higher than it was for the MSOs that have agreed to those terms, according to ESPN. Contact Mr. Burns over at ESPN.

Charlie is a greedy SOB gouging his customers like he does with DHD. When sold a la carte, Discovery Theater carries no base fee but is subject to revenue sharing; a cable or satellite provider can essentially charge whatever they want for Discovery Theater, so long as they return 30-50% of the revenue from the channel. When bundled as part of package, the effective Discovery Theater fee is/was closer to $1.00; that said, I'm not sure what the requirements are to obtain the package price.

On the $7.99 Discovery Theater channel, Dish is making somewhere between $4 and $5. If they wanted, they could charge $2.50 for it and make $1.25. Of course, there are also costs associated with delivery of the channel, including the occupied transponder space.

Again since 99% of whats currently on ESPN-HD is STANDARD DEFINITION its not worth it to pay whatever Disney wants for a mirror of a channel for which we all already pay for.That's closer to 96% than 99%. But then, around 95% of CBS is STANDARD DEFINITION too. People watch ESPN for the sports programming, like Sunday Night Football; they don't watch it for rerun after rerun of Baseball Tonight and SportsCenter.

Moreover, the ESPN proposal takes into account the fact that less content is available this year, and more content will be available next year (50+% more sporting events + studio programming) and the year after. This is a multi-year proposal. ESPN considers the fee for ESPN-HD this year as "negligible."

The claim that ESPN's technical service fee would necessitate pricing of that channel at anywhere close to $10/mo is "utterly ridiculous." The real issue here is that certain MSOs don't want to establish such a precedent for HDTV channel pricing, because 10 or 20 HDTV channels would make such a package too expensive for the masses. You and I may be willing to pay $20/mo for 10-15 HDTV channels, but the masses are not. If this were a one-year deal, ESPN-HD carriage a la carte would be a non-issue, but the fact that it is a long-term deal complicates the issue.

Certainly, DISH and DirecTV believe they are negotiating in the best interests of their customers. But this does not mean they are necessarily negotiating in the best interests of existing enthusiasts and HDTV viewers. The blame on ESPN, and specifically the suggestion of corporate greed, doesn't reflect the reality of the negotiations. That doesn't mean that Dish and DirecTV are at fault; both parties, negotiating in good faith, just disagree on the long-term value of a ESPN HDTV service.

From what I understand, origionally ESPN-HD was supposed to be free to anyone who carried the ESPN Package, ESPN also wanted ESPN to be provided free to the consumer in whatever package ESPN was in.This was never the case. ESPN has told me explicitly that they launched the service based on the expectation of a technical service fee. ESPN has maintained since the first day of the announcement that it would carry a technical service charge. Three snippets from a five-month old article from Multichannel News (http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=story_stocks&articleid=CA263935):

Sports giant ESPN will charge distributors a monthly "technical provisioning fee" for ESPN HD, according to Bratches.

"It's a function of the extraordinary cost that ESPN is incurring to get into this business," said Bratches, who won't put a price tag on the charge, also opting not to discuss how much the Bristol upgrade will cost.

ESPN is also insistent that it does not want ESPN HD to be offered à la carte, but rather packaged in with other HD services.

"We don't think à la carte in the high-def world is a sustainable business model," Bratches said. "The way we see the market, a consumer would buy the digital box with the HD converter in it and with that, they would get the broadcast signals for free. And if they were a premium subscriber, they'd get HBO and Showtime as well.

"Then, they'd have an option to buy a package of high-definition services in addition to that for, say, $10. It would be populated by ESPN and other ad-supported type services."Stinchcomb and Cuban both understand why some programmers are waiting to make their moves in HDTV, which doesn't offer an immediate return on investment.

"In the subscription HD business, we're talking about something where it's three or four years out before you turn a profit," Stinchcomb said. "As a private company, we [Discovery] can make that kind of investment. Mark Cuban with HDNet can make that kind of investment.

"But if you're a publicly traded company, you're subject to the quarterly pressures that come with being a publicly traded company. It's a difficult investment at this point to justify."
It's going to take more than chump change to get ESPN HD off the ground, as its rollout will entail costs that one might not imagine.

For example, ESPN's world headquarters in Bristol, Conn., must be retrofitted in order for the company to launch high-definition service, according to Sean Bratches, ESPN's executive vice president of affiliate sales and marketing.

It will take what Bratches called "a significant capital investment" to transform Bristol from its current state as "an anachronistic analog facility" to one that's HD-ready. The "to-do" list includes some new studio sets.

"The SportsCenter set that we have today is not appropriate for high definition," Bratches said. "It just has too many flaws in it that high-def would pick up.

"I kid Chris Berman that we're going to need new high-definition anchors. Botox will be big. Buy stock now, that's my tip."

Out in the field, ESPN has HDTV production trucks, which are scarce, on order. And HD cameras must be installed in stadiums and other venues — and placed at higher spots than analog cameras, so they are in position to take in the full field.

"We have to buy seats in stadiums to do that," Bratches said. "There is a degree of complexity and cost to this that people don't realize."

Nonetheless, ESPN is taking the pricey plunge into HD next April when it launches ESPN HD, a simulcast of its flagship ESPN service.

[Mark Lamutt]

What shows do you produce Jerry?

I have every confidence that ESPN-HD will show up eventually on Dish and Directv. When is anyone's guess. Hopefully sooner rather than later. I also think that you are in the minority of the people that would pay $15 a month for ESPN-HD. But that's OK.

As for ABC-HD and NBC-HD, the only chance that they could show up would be only in O&O markets like CBS is now. Both networks refused. That was awhile ago, though, so who knows what will happen? I certainly don't.

[rbonzer]

Originally posted by Ken_F
...
That's closer to 96% than 99%. But then, around 95% of CBS is STANDARD DEFINITION too. People watch ESPN for the sports programming, like Sunday Night Football; they don't watch it for rerun after rerun of Baseball Tonight and SportsCenter.

Moreover, the ESPN proposal takes into account the fact that less content is available this year, and more content will be available next year (50+% more sporting events + studio programming) and the year after. This is a multi-year proposal. ESPN considers the fee for ESPN-HD this year as "negligible."
...
[/B]

So, if this year is $5/mo and 100 hours programming, will next year, with 200 hours programming be $10/mo?

If they showed one game (I'll use three hours for a game) a night, everyday (which I hope is where the channel is headed), that adds up to about 1000 hours. Would this channel cost $50/month?

[Ken_F]

rbonzer,

So, if this year is $5/mo and 100 hours programming, will next year, with 200 hours programming be $10/mo?No. And don't confuse ESPN's service fee with the amount you actually have to pay Dish Network, DirecTV, etc.

Just to clarify, it is 100 events (not 100 hours) in HDTV. Each event will range from about two hours to as much as six hours. If you take an average of three hours per event, that is 300 hours of HDTV from ESPN.

Next year, ESPN plans to do 50% more events in HDTV (>150+), plus thousands of hours of highlight shows (SportsCenter, Baseball Tonight, etc) in HDTV. SportsCenter in HDTV is tentatively scheduled for 2Q 2004.

[Scott Greczkowski]

Well then, in a year ESPN-HD might be worth it.

For now, I don't want ESPN double dipping me for the same channel which I currently pay for in SD with the bonus of a game or two a week in HD.

This launch was NOT well thought out by ESPN.

I wonder what the rush was?

[normang]

Originally posted by ibglowin
Why should we pay more for ESPN-HD??? We don't pay any more for HBO HD or Showtime HD?

Because you already pay for those channels in the subscription price for Showtime and HBO.

[normang]

Its no surprise to me, who is going to add new programming of any kind without some advance notice or promotion. I guess even Discovery was sort of stealth, but it make no sense to not promo new products somewhat in advance if your really all set.

As far as the 8PSK adaptors, no matter what happens, eventually all HD programming on Dish with use that format, your going to need that card no matter what eventually. Get it while its cheaper..

[normang]

After reading more of the thread, a couple more cents..

Current DHD subs pay $7.99, if Dish added ESPN, and the supposed HDnet channels (all 3 of the reported new channels from Cuban) and made a package of these 5 channels, and it was $9.99 mo.. That would be worth it, maybe a little more.

While I enjoy sports, I am not so fanatical that paying $12-15 a month for a HD sports channel is worth it to me..

Now when HD adoption is supposed to be complete in 2006, just because cable channels are not OTA, they going to give us nothing but SD for eons to come? How is that fair when everyone else is forced to spend millions to provide HD...

Have a good day

[Ken_F]

Now when HD adoption is supposed to be complete in 2006, just because cable channels are not OTA, they going to give us nothing but SD for eons to come? How is that fair when everyone else is forced to spend millions to provide HD...The FCC mandate says nothing about HDTV. It only requires that stations get on the air with digital broadcasts, so the government can auction the spectrum they now use. They can do SDTV, HDTV, or whatever they want, so long as it duplicates the programming on the analog feed.

Come 2006, only the major broadcasters like CBS, ABC, FOX, NBC, WB, UPN, and PBS will (may) do HDTV, and then, only during primetime. The smaller broadcasters will do 480p or SDTV only, and even the major networks will only do HDTV about 10% of each day. If you want a 24/7 HDTV cable network, you are going to have to pay extra for it (at least, until there are millions and millions of viewers).