Echostar Hoses Subs Again! [Archive]

DCSholtis

04-03-03, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by TNGTony
Tux, I think there is another reason for the black-out on Dish not having to do with this. The tech probably pulled this answer from his posterior to get you o the phone since he didn't know an answer besides "Dish has no control over Fox Sports black-out rules." That is the correct answer.

A question: Was this broadcast on channel 43 or any other local channel? If so, there is probably your answer. All I do know is that Dish CANNOT pick and choose which games they show for a discount rate.

Also keep in mind that black-out rules for cable and satellite are diferent.

See ya
Tony

Tony no Tribe games are on OTA......FSN Ohio bought the rights to all them all .....(Or mostly) last year...

Tuxedo

04-03-03, 10:26 PM

I am switching to DirecTV. Working things out with orbitsat right now for an HDVR2 and director receiver plus triple LNB dish. My E* stuff is up on the buy and sell area. From dbsforums.com, someone reported that the RSN will only show 75 out of up to 150 games. Sorry, Charlie, but even though I stuck with ya since 1998, it is time to go. I'll miss GAC, and the extra Starz and Cinemax channels, but such is life.

Marcus S

04-03-03, 10:34 PM

So many reasons to leave and E* still does not get it.

Let's pull all 6 distants nets (incrementally you understand).
Let's not upgrade the 6000 to OpenTV, discontinue, and expect millions to wait until 2004 for an overpriced $900+ replacement HD PVR (in this economy?)
And no one wants a 4900 replacement, because at twice the price you can still get get a 508 w/out 6hr buffer and non-functional distinctive ring CID or a DP 301 less CID, UHF, or DD.
Programming Price Increase across every tier for more Home Shopping and non-interest channels (everyone love'd that one).

I pulled E* tonight, dropped my cost by $10 a mo and now receive more programming. Figure that one out. And then the E* account recovery team, says, well your only one of the few with those complaints. Like it, love it, shove it. Bye! How about you, E*, give your marketing consultants a boost through the door and let it hit them on the way out. Did their resume say Enron or Cable?

:)

No_yankees_on_Dish

04-03-03, 11:53 PM

E* doesn't give a dam about it's sports fans!

John Corn

04-04-03, 04:42 AM

*sigh*.....they just keep nudging me to get DirecTV.

tampa8

04-04-03, 09:17 AM

If you have read many of my posts, I do not agree with alot of the comments against Dish and Charlie as I often find them factually wrong or just written to say something bad whenever possible. There is even an instance of this in a reply above.

However, this thread is NOT fall under that. I took the time to email FSN OH - actually I think Rainbow Communications. I received an email back from Steven J. Pawlowski. He has confirmed that Dish only picked up half the Cleveland Indian games this year. (One can only assume as was mentioned above to save money) He suggested to let Dish know your displeasure. This shows IMHO no understanding of people who follow a team by Dish. Dish should have just not carried any games, reduced the cost to the subscriber and let that be known on its website. (Not the generic "there may be backouts")

This does however, along with the YES saga, and the now quiet NESN saga, that this problem is only getting worse, and some kind of change in how these channels are being packaged is going to have to take place. And to also give a little perspective to this, Charter Cable in Eastern Connecticut last year for the most part, only carried Red Sox games that were on NESN - which was a little over half - they could not come to terms with Fox 25 over carrying their games. (They had a couple and it stopped and they received many calls about it)
If I was in Cleveland, I would certainly switch providers if the Indian games were important and let Dish know why.

jeffwtux

04-04-03, 09:53 AM

Can they even legally call this a "blackout"? To me that's illegally misleading their customers.

jeffwtux

04-04-03, 10:03 AM

IMHO, what we need is a massive overhaul of how sports entertainment is paid for. There is no free market at work here. There is no check at all on ESPN,FoxSports, or whomever from overcharging cable/DBS providers, or overpaying for broadcasting rights. The general public didn't value the NBA contract at even half of what ESPN paid, yet we were forced to pay for in the form of a $2/month rate hike. This is beginning to resemble the California power companies. The energy traders are ESPN/FoxSports and the broadcasters. PG&E and the utilities are the cable/DBS providers. Sure, they can try to do these penny pinching strategies after the situation has gotten out of hand, but it's already a crisis. The cable/DBS providers have no negotiating power agains these sports providers. The must take any overpriced sports rights contract or lose the cheaper ones carried by the same network.
We need consistent rates charged per subscriber. Sports broadcasters should be forced to charge EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT per subscriber for every cable/DBS provider, and must disclose these amounts. I'm sure Dish is simply getting charged way more by these networks.

jeffwtux

04-04-03, 10:18 AM

People, this is an outrage. We must not let this go. We must keep pounding them till we get an explanation and a resolution.

RichW

04-04-03, 10:19 AM

Rupert's revenge?

jeffwtux

04-04-03, 10:39 AM

RichW: I think it's more than just that. Rupert doesn't own YES or NESN. Although. FoxSportsOhio could be Rupert's revenge. Even if it is, if I were Charlie, I'd complain big time to the FTC and make the use this as a condition to buying DirecTV. They must fairly charge Dish for all their channels.

RichW

04-04-03, 10:46 AM

I think the other point that people are ignoring is that, even if Dish is ignoring these sports channels and packages, they still are gaining market share on DirecTV and are closer to profitability as well. So while individual people might get upset and switch to DirecTV, this has little impact on Echostar's business or its business plan.

Tuxedo

04-04-03, 10:58 AM

Well, today I went to Circuit City and got an HDVR2, and RCA basic, and dual-LNB dish, plus I get a $100 rebate, a $25 gift card, and still get to sell my E* equip. I should come out ahead. Install is on Wednesday.

MikeW

04-04-03, 11:09 AM

There is a similar situation in Las Vegas.

E*: AT100
Fox Sports West (Angels)

E*: Sports Pak ($5.00)
Fox Sports West (Angels)
Fox Sports Arizona (Diamondbacks)

D*: Total Choice
Fox Sports West (Angels)
Fox Sports West 2 (Dodgers)

D*: Sports Pak ($12.00)
Fox Sports West (Angels)
Fox Sports West 2 (Dodgers)
Fox Sports Bay Area (Giants/A's)
Fox Sports Arizona (Diamondbacks)

alv

04-04-03, 11:09 AM

I wish it was practical to get rid of all sports stations and drop our costs considerably - or pay a carte like movie channels.

No_YES_on_Dish

04-04-03, 03:10 PM

"I think the other point that people are ignoring is that, even if Dish is ignoring these sports channels and packages, they still are gaining market share on DirecTV and are closer to profitability as well. So while individual people might get upset and switch to DirecTV, this has little impact on Echostar's business or its business plan."

Maybe Dish forgot to subtract the people that left.

Anyway where are most of the new subscribers coming from? I'm sure they are not coming from the NJ/NY area.

Nick

04-04-03, 05:42 PM

Happiness is being a Braves fan! :D

Braves TV Schedule (http://atlanta.braves.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/atl/schedule/atl_schedule_tvlistings.jsp#top)

Jacob S

04-04-03, 05:48 PM

You got that right, so much easier to have a favorite team that you can watch on TBS but they do not show all the games and do not show the world series. I wonder if these can be blacked out as well?

mjschuyler

04-04-03, 10:51 PM

Doesn't anyone get it? The "free" sports on TV are slowly ending.

Sport teams pay up to $150 million in salaries and this does not include the cost of team management, stadium upkeep, etc. Sooner or later something had to give. Teams need more revenue so they are starting their own Sports Networks (like YES) or charging the local Sports Network more. Advertising rates can no longer cover these costs. The local Sports Channels have to raise their rates to cable and satellite providers.

Cable and Satellite have to decide if they can either absorb these costs or raise rates. These Sports Channels also want to be in the lowest cost packages so they get revenue from all local subscribers whether that customer watches sports or not.

The shakeout started with Dish Network and Cablevision refusing to make all subscribers pay for YES. They both offered to add YES as a premium. YES refused, they know they can not raise as much revenue from only YES subscribers as the individual cost to those subscribers would be very high.

Direct TV has always been known as a sports friendly provider. Direct TV has had all of the Pro Sports Packages NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL. They were one of the first to add YES and it seems they have all their local Sports Networks games available.

Dish Network only recently added NBA and NHL Sports Packages to their line up. The reason I have heard for their not providing NFL and MLB is they cost so much Dish would lose money on these packages.

Dish Network has always been known as a low cost provider. Dish has guaranteed cost of it's TOP 50 will not change until 2005 this package includes a Local Sports Channel.

From the above posts it appears some local Sports Networks have raised their rates. It looks like Dish negotiated a package with out some of the games that are available to control costs. To call these games "blacked out" is probably not the proper term as they are available if Dish carried them. A better term would be "not carried by Dish Network". Since these Sports Channels are in the TOP 50 package any increase in cost could not be passed on.

There appears to be two things that could happen.

1) Local Sports Networks will be broken out of the packages and become a premium service
2) There will be local pricing for satellite packages based on how strong the local teams are and how much they can charge.

tampa8

04-04-03, 11:40 PM

mjschuyler
I think you will find most everyone here already does know all that - and to one extent or another agrees. In this particular thread I think Dish made a mistake not making it very clear to anyone who subscribes in the FSNOH area that they will not get all the games they are entitled to. There is no question others will or already have followed what Dish and cablevision are trying to do. I'm sure there is a limit for Direct
TV and other cable companies too. (see my example of Charter Cable above)
In fact some argue Direct TV has gone too far already in that they now have some sports packages that are costing more than they are bringing in. Perhaps that is one reason why only News Corp is interested in them now. However sports is a major ingrediant in any station lineup and one of the many changes mentioned will need to take place eventually.
As always this situation is more complicated than what is on the surface. For instance, NESN used to carry about 60% or so of the Red Sox games, but now carry most all of them. It would be plausible that they would charge more. If I read the webpage for FSNOH correctly, I beleive they are in a similar situation - they started carrying many more Indian games last year too. There really needs to be some kind of "Task Force" to look at the whole situation and make some recommendations for the future. I do like the idea of the same price being made available to all providers.

Nick

04-05-03, 07:21 AM

Originally posted by Jacob S You got that right, so much easier to have a favorite team that you can watch on TBS but they do not show all the games and do not show the world series. I wonder if these can be blacked out as well? In the 'good old days', when Ted Turner's Braves were billed as "America's Team", almost all games were televised on TBS' ubiquitous Superstation. Today, almost all Braves games are still televised and are available to the vast majority of southeastern fans, but the games are now shown on several different channels. My challenge is to find "today's game". With my trusty 7200 keyboard at my side, I just type in"braves" and the TV schedule comes up.

The 2003 Braves games can be found on...

TBS
Turner South
FOXSportsSouth
FOX
ESPN
ESPN2

In addition, all Braves games are broadcast on WSB 750AM, a clear channel station with a 100kW nighttime signal reaching some 38 states.

Much better than the old days when I had to hunt to eat, and rub sticks to make fire. ;)

scooper

04-05-03, 07:38 AM

mjschuyler - you're pretty much spot on, except that you have to get AT100 (not AT50) to get your local RSN(s).

If you don't the way it is going, vote with your wallet.

FTA Michael

04-05-03, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by mjschuyler
Sport teams pay up to $150 million in salaries and this does not include the cost of team management, stadium upkeep, etc. Sooner or later something had to give. Teams need more revenue ... Yes, intelligent teams will do everything they can to maximize revenue, just as any business does. (You could as easily say that Sears needs more revenue.) But their revenue-enhancement strategies, such as higher ticket prices and higher rights fees, have nothing to do with player salaries, property taxes, utility bills, or any other cost of doing business.

Teams charge more because they can, period. If they charge too much for tickets, fans will stay home (see many NHL cities). If they charge too much for rights fees, some cable/DBS systems won't carry them. Prices are set to maximize revenue based on what customers are willing and able to pay.

IMHO, leagues need to structure broadcast contracts with an eye to ensuring the continued popularity of a sport. That means providing a regular taste OTA at a time accessible to the whole family, adding extra games on basic sports channels for regular fans, and providing the whole shebang as a pay package. The NBA and NFL are good examples of different ways to provide this mix.

I agree with your bottom line. At some point, sports channels may become so expensive that they get treated as premium channels. Also recognize that sports help sell cable/DBS subscriptions in general -- a big reason some folks get a dish is to see more than they can OTA. And as interest in some sports drops and fewer games are available to watch on basic channels, their fans will be more willing to support a pay package that supports their niche.

jeffwtux

04-05-03, 10:49 AM

mjschuyler:
I have no problem paying for sports, I just don't want to be forced to overpay for what the free market has clearly already rejected. I just don't want the free market circumvented. That's when I get angry. The free market advertisers rejected NBCs previous NBA contract, yet ESPN/Disney are paying more which is being paid for by cable/DBS subscribers who have no choice. There's no way even 10% of the population would vote to pay that much for the NBA contract, but ESPN can hold the cable/DBS companies hostage because they also have college football and basketball, NHL hockey, MLB, and NFL. There will never be a limit to athletes salaries if this is allowed to continue. THE CURRENT NBA TV CONTRACT IS THE BIGGEST FRAUD IN THE HISTORY OF SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT, because ESPN is shoving down our throat.

jeffwtux

04-05-03, 10:52 AM

BTW: I subscribed to NHL center ice and ESPN Full Court this year. Clearly, I have no problem paying for sports.

raj2001

04-05-03, 11:12 AM

I honestly wished that they'd make all sports premium so that they don't interrupt regular programming (I don't like sports on TV).

Anyway, I think Charlie doesn't really care that much about sports. It seems as though he's already conceded that to D*.

Ronmort

04-05-03, 01:42 PM

If a DTV sub doesn't want sports, just customize your guide and knock off the sports channels. I do that with church channels, non-English channels, and some shopping channels.

dbronstein

04-05-03, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by jeffwtux
mjschuyler:
I have no problem paying for sports, I just don't want to be forced to overpay for what the free market has clearly already rejected. I just don't want the free market circumvented. That's when I get angry. The free market advertisers rejected NBCs previous NBA contract, yet ESPN/Disney are paying more which is being paid for by cable/DBS subscribers who have no choice. There's no way even 10% of the population would vote to pay that much for the NBA contract, but ESPN can hold the cable/DBS companies hostage because they also have college football and basketball, NHL hockey, MLB, and NFL. There will never be a limit to athletes salaries if this is allowed to continue. THE CURRENT NBA TV CONTRACT IS THE BIGGEST FRAUD IN THE HISTORY OF SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT, because ESPN is shoving down our throat.

So vote with your wallet and switch to a package that doesn't have ESPN.

I have little interest in the NBA, but ESPN has enough other programming (NFL, college football, MLB) that I'm willing to pay an extra couple of bucks for it. That's how it works - if you think the services are worth what they charge, you pay it, and if you don't think it's worth it, then you don't pay it.

ESPN is in a position where there are enough people willing to pay any extra fees they have to charge to cover the NBA contract. You can bitch and moan all you want about how absurd the deal is, but as long as you keep subscribing to ESPN, you're not helping your cause.

Dennis

tampa8

04-05-03, 10:59 PM

dbronstein wrote:
"So vote with your wallet and switch to a package that doesn't have ESPN."
Huh? That is exactly what the problem is! You can't. There is no English - non movie package (On Dish anyway) that doesn't have ESPN. I happen to want it, but for those who do not want the sports channels there is no separate package. That's what is being proposed here.

Marcus S

04-05-03, 11:46 PM

Sport Net's should go to Premium. It is a financial burden to the rest of the dis-interested. I became dis-interested when Bronco's tickets went to $125 a pop for premium games, then blacked out on local nets. Nothing can justify the experience -opinion-.

NBA and NHL... Oh please... I could only wish RTD and United went under over contract disputes. Lifetime job assurance, 10% annual pay increase, bonus, and full undisputed health coverage. Gee, which reality currently offers those benefits?

Mark Holtz

04-06-03, 01:12 AM

Originally posted by dbronstein
So vote with your wallet and switch to a package that doesn't have ESPN.

The minimum package for Dish Network and avoid the $5 surcharge is the AT-50 (http://www.dishnetwork.com/content/programming/packages/at_50/index.asp?viewby=1&packid=10049&sortby=1), which includes ESPN. ESPN is also part of Dos Latinos Max.

ESPN is also part of DirecTV Total Choice package. Not sure about select choice, but I wouldn't be surprised if Darth Maus insisted it was there also.

dbronstein

04-06-03, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by tampa8
dbronstein wrote:
"So vote with your wallet and switch to a package that doesn't have ESPN."
Huh? That is exactly what the problem is! You can't. There is no English - non movie package (On Dish anyway) that doesn't have ESPN. I happen to want it, but for those who do not want the sports channels there is no separate package. That's what is being proposed here.

So then don't get Dish. Obviously you feel whatever package you subscribe to is worth the money, or you wouldn't be paying for it.

I would love to have every channel just be priced a la carte so I could just pick and choose what I want. But since Dish doesn't offer that, I've decided that it's worth it to me to pay $42 a month for AT100 and my locals.

Again, if you don't like the current system, don't give them your money. nd discontinue your service. The people who don't want to pay for ESPN obviously feel that it's worth absorbing the cost to get the channels they do want. And if they don't think it's worth it, then they're just plain dumb for paying.

Dennis

jeffwtux

04-06-03, 03:46 PM

"So vote with your wallet and switch to a package that doesn't have ESPN."

dbronstein:
That's my point. I can't reject just the NBA contract. I still want their college football, college basketball, NHL hockey... These aren't overpriced. It's the NBA contract that they are making people pay for using their other sports as blackmail bundling. JUST LIKE MICROSOFT!!! This bundling just like Microsoft.
And like the other posters said, you isn't really any English package on any cable/DBS system in the US that doesn't have ESPN.

jeffwtux

04-06-03, 03:52 PM

dbronsteing:
The choice to buy nothing is no justification of competition. That's the worst argument that can be used to justify any monopoly. To those people, the only time a company has a monopoly is where you must buy a product or die. That's not a monopoly; that's tyranny.

reddice

04-06-03, 06:14 PM

Here any yankees game that is on the espns which we pay for and wsbk superstation is blacked out. What a rip off cheap charlie you love to give people the blacked out screen which by the way locks your reciever. Cheapo.

juan ellitinez

04-06-03, 06:19 PM

Yankees are not blacked out on my ESPN..

Yankee_Fan

04-06-03, 06:57 PM

Yankees games are blacked out on ESPN in NY/NJ area. I started watching the 1st game of the season for Yankees that was being telecasted on ESPN2 then all of a sudden it got blacked out!

NO YANKEE GAMES will be telecasted on Dish Network This YEAR in NY/NJ even if they are on ESPN. They Get Blacked out in the NY/NJ area. That sucks!

juan ellitinez

04-06-03, 07:23 PM

Sorry dish doesnt block out games the YANKEES do.. so please go complain to george steinbrenner

Mike123abc

04-06-03, 08:21 PM

I just have to say stop ragging on Dish and go get DirecTV if the sports situation bothers you so much. It is obvious that DirecTV has been taking the lead in sports programming, and if that is what you want, then give them a call. Screaming at Charlie all day until you are blue in the face is not going to get any more sports on Dish. Now, if enough vote with their dollars by switching away from Dish that might change his mind.

DirecTV is waiting for your call now... Call and give them your business.

dbronstein

04-06-03, 09:40 PM

Originally posted by jeffwtux
"So vote with your wallet and switch to a package that doesn't have ESPN."

dbronstein:
That's my point. I can't reject just the NBA contract. I still want their college football, college basketball, NHL hockey... These aren't overpriced. It's the NBA contract that they are making people pay for using their other sports as blackmail bundling. JUST LIKE MICROSOFT!!! This bundling just like Microsoft.
And like the other posters said, you isn't really any English package on any cable/DBS system in the US that doesn't have ESPN.

So what you really want is every sporting event on pay per view. That's what you're saying with "I want ESPN, just not their NBA games."

Again, you are paying $X for whatever packages you are getting. You must feel that the channels/shows you actually watch are worth the money you are paying, because if you didn't, you wouldn't keep paying.

Dennis

dbronstein

04-06-03, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by jeffwtux
dbronsteing:
The choice to buy nothing is no justification of competition. That's the worst argument that can be used to justify any monopoly. To those people, the only time a company has a monopoly is where you must buy a product or die. That's not a monopoly; that's tyranny.

What the hell are you talking about? What monopoly is there?

Tim

04-07-03, 10:10 AM

So many reasons to leave and E* still does not get it.

Let's pull all 6 distants nets (incrementally you understand).

I don't understand. They pulled/are pulling Dallas. Please share the info you have, I sub to Chicago and Denver & would hate to see them go. I can understand Dallas being pulled as there is already a central time zone option w/Chicago...

tampa8

04-07-03, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by Tim

I don't understand. They pulled/are pulling Dallas. Please share the info you have, I sub to Chicago and Denver & would hate to see them go. I can understand Dallas being pulled as there is already a central time zone option w/Chicago...

He says that to get people like you worried. There are other posters (on the other forum) who for years have said there would be no more superstations on Dish either. Could Dish reduce some of the cities? Sure, but there is no indication of it at this time. Could Direct TV go out of business? If someone doesn't buy them sure, but there is no indication of that at this time. Get it? I can say things that have no basis in fact too.

EricG

04-07-03, 04:27 PM

You'll never look back!

Originally posted by John Corn
*sigh*.....they just keep nudging me to get DirecTV.

jeffwtux

04-07-03, 06:00 PM

Dbronstein: People keep saying that players salaries will hit the wall and stop going up when people stop going to the games and stop watching. Clearly, that's not true. Ever been to an NBA game lately? They're half empty, and most of the seats AREN'T sold; it's not all no shows. Plus, the Pistons who are having a great year, practically have to give their tickets away. I paid a total of $18 to go to 3 games this year. The bottom line is, the Pistons and probably a majority of the NBA teams are making the largest chunk of their money from cable/DBS fees, not tickets, and not advertising. The NBA players and the NBA can get $5/month per subscriber if they wanted. There is no way to stop this. PEOPLE AREN'T JUST GOING TO GO BACK TO ANTENNAS. Unless you really think that ESPN's NBA broadcasting is worth $24/year, you should be outraged. I'm not going to unleash my rage on Charlie. I want the pressure and boycott on ESPN/Disney(not that they don't have enough problems already, granted). This just has to stop. I had no problems with players salaries in the 80's or 90's when the bulk of the increases came from tickets and advertising. However, the general public is clearly now going to be forced to pay these exhorbitant salaries if it wants any cable/DBS programming at all. This is wrong and I've been outraged about this contract the moment it was announced.

jeffwtux

04-07-03, 06:01 PM

To me this isn't about DirecTV vs Dish. I'll be just as hateful to ESPN/Disney either way.

FTA Michael

04-07-03, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by jeffwtux
I had no problems with players salaries in the 80's or 90's when the bulk of the increases came from tickets and advertising. However, the general public is clearly now going to be forced to pay these exhorbitant salaries if it wants any cable/DBS programming at all.To clarify, popularity drives revenue, and with collective bargaining, revenue drives salaries. Salaries are a cost, like utilities and materials, and they do not drive prices of anything.

Teams and leagues charge more for programming because networks are willing to pay it. A big reason they're willing to pay it is competition; if a competing network gets all the good sports programming, it could kill the losing network's raison d'etre. (See USA Network in the late 1980s.)

Sports networks raise rates and make demands about tiers of carriage because they can. When a DBS/cable carrier balks, it gets a minority of vocal fans mobilized. (See YES/Cablevision, or Fox Sports Ohio/Dish.) The fact that carriers are beginning to stop buying some programming suggests that we may already be reaching a critical point, at which carriers decide the decreased costs without certain networks is worth losing a certain number of subscribers.

Will we ever have cable or DBS without ESPN? Not with the current OTA retransmission laws. Disney has a huge hammer with the ABC O&O stations, so carriers are just going to have to negotiate some kind of Disney package.:(

jeffwtux

04-07-03, 06:56 PM

carload. I hope you are right about the picking and choosing contracts. With NBA league pass, I hardly doubt any DBS/Cable provider would lose very many subscribers if it didn't buy all the NBA games from ESPN, if it was allowed to. Yes, the ESPN/Disney conglomerate is strong, however, that's not really what I'm pissed off at or think is the problem. Like I did allude to, Disney is in pretty bad shape still.

dbronstein

04-07-03, 07:52 PM

jeffwtux:

Just curious - do you like every show/movie/sporting event on every channel you get? I'm guessing you don't, but you're still paying for them. That's all the NBA is - another program. Yes, it costs more that Australian rules football, but it's just another program. Do you get any of the movie channels? If you do, you're paying for the movies you don't want to watch as well as the ones you do want to see.

You can bitch and moan all you want about having to pay for the NBA, but as I said, since you keep paying your bill you obviously feel the programming you get is worth the money. I'm sure there's a price point where you would decide that it's not worth it and you'd go back to your antenna, just like we all would.

This is a free market and the cable and satellite providers and networks are going to charge as much as the market will bear. And the market - so far - is willing to pay for ESPN with the NBA contract.

Dennis

tampa8

04-08-03, 08:44 AM

dbronstein
I still think you are missing the point here. We end up paying for the NBA contract without ever subscribing or watching a game. Your examples of movie channels are very very different - I subscribe, I pay, I watch. The NBA contract (As just one example) makes the overall cost of doing business higher and those costs are in one way or the other passed along to ALL of us - subscribers or not. I don't subscribe, I don't watch, but I do pay! Because of the escalating cost of sports programming there is going to have to be a way that those that want it pay for it. The movie packages are money makers - the NBA contract is not. A contract that loses money for Dish or Direct (or cable) with no real hope of it being a money maker is not good for subscribers. But too often to get the channels many want, Dish or Direct (or cable) has to take the non money maker. I guess we are not being clear enough for you to understand because this is an issue that is certainly not just being discussed here - and we will be seeing much more about how Dish, Direct, will handle it in the future. RSN's fall into this of course also.

BobMurdoch

04-08-03, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by raj2001
I honestly wished that they'd make all sports premium so that they don't interrupt regular programming (I don't like sports on TV).

Anyway, I think Charlie doesn't really care that much about sports. It seems as though he's already conceded that to D*.

Noooo, he loves sports......

Soccer, Cricket, Wrestling.....
heck even the NBA and NHL.

Just not Major League Baseball or the NFL, the only two sports I care about... sigh....

Hey, if you REALLY need your baseball fix.. try this....

http://www.mlb.tv

You can now stream live baseball to your computer (about half of the games are available on any given day) the kicker.... it'll cost you $14.95 a month to see 'em. They actually use DirecTV EI for the feed (which you can see by the preponderance of DirecTv commercials)

dbronstein

04-08-03, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by tampa8
dbronstein
I still think you are missing the point here. We end up paying for the NBA contract without ever subscribing or watching a game. Your examples of movie channels are very very different - I subscribe, I pay, I watch. The NBA contract (As just one example) makes the overall cost of doing business higher and those costs are in one way or the other passed along to ALL of us - subscribers or not. I don't subscribe, I don't watch, but I do pay! Because of the escalating cost of sports programming there is going to have to be a way that those that want it pay for it. The movie packages are money makers - the NBA contract is not. A contract that loses money for Dish or Direct (or cable) with no real hope of it being a money maker is not good for subscribers. But too often to get the channels many want, Dish or Direct (or cable) has to take the non money maker. I guess we are not being clear enough for you to understand because this is an issue that is certainly not just being discussed here - and we will be seeing much more about how Dish, Direct, will handle it in the future. RSN's fall into this of course also.

Let's start over so we're all on the same page. The NBA contract is with ESPN, not Dish. To cover the cost of the contract, ESPN raises its rates to Dish and the other carriers, and they pass it on to the customers. So we are paying for a chunk of the NBA contract whether we watch it or not. I get that.

My point is that everyone is also paying for a ton of other programming that they don't watch, so you have to look at the total package cost, not the individual channel and program costs.

I pay $42 a month. I get a bunch of channels I never watch, and I certainly don't watch everything on the channels I do watch. So it comes down to whether the programming I actually watch is worth $42 a month to me. And it is, so I continue to pay it. I don't break it down by how much I'm paying for each channel or each show, because that's not how I pay it.

So my question to you guys is do you feel that the programming you actually watch is worth your monthly fee? If the answer is yes, then so what if you're paying an extra buck because ESPN increased their fees because of the NBA contract. And if the answer is no, then why the heck are you paying it?

Dennis

jeffwtux

04-08-03, 12:15 PM

Ok let me start over. NBC had the previous NBA TV Deal. They funded mostly from advertisers which is an extremely competitive and fluid marketplace. If people don't watch; your advertisements don't get seen; you don't make as much money totally fair. NBC LOST A TON OF MONEY ON THEIR LAST DEAL. At the same time all cable/dbs subscribers(except broadcast basic cable) were already paying for ESPN(whether they watched or not), and it was already making up a disproportional percentage of a cable/dbs bill. So ESPN/DISNEY then offered more money than the previous contract which the unarguably more fluid and competitive advertising market and model already rejected, and offered more money than the deal which NBC lost money on. Unless they offer more value-add to the NBA product which they clearly won't, how is it suddenly worth more, and why should cable/DBS subscribers be forced to pay the difference on a contract that the FREE MARKET REJECTED. They are clearly circumventing the free market, and making a market that has very little power pay for their overpriced product. How will there ever be a free market way to check this behavior? Going back to antenna is not the solution. Going backward is NEVER the solution.

dbronstein

04-08-03, 12:30 PM

jeffwtux, I give up. The only thing that affects you personally is how much you pay for the programming you watch. The "free market" and its relationship to the ESPN/NBA contract is irrelevant. If you don't like it, go back to your antenna. Nobody is holding a gun to your head forcing you to get satellite or cable. If you don't like the fees they charge, don't pay them. You can whine about how unfair it is all you want, but as long as you keep paying that bill every month you're a willing participant.

Dennis

jeffwtux

04-08-03, 06:55 PM

Like I have said before, my issue is not with Dish, it's with ESPN/Disney, they are the ENRON(You probably thought what they did in California was just fine too, right). Dish, Direct, and the cable companies are PG&E. ESPN was bidding up the NBA contract just like Enron was pumping up gas prices. It's the same thing. There was nothing to stop Enron from escalating prices, and there is nothing that will stop ESPN from overbidding on broadcast rights just to maintain their necessity status. Then there's nothing that can stop the NBA salaries from escalating. In fact, at this point, it probably is in ESPN/Disney's best interest to overpay for sports contracts. If they control most or all of the sports(they currently have all), then there is no way a cable/dbs can afford to not carry them as a basic channel, especially if ESPN/Disney mandates it. There will never be check on NBA salaries if this continues, even if some people start dropping cable/dbs altogether. Again going backward never solves anything. THIS THING STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN THE MORE I THINK ABOUT IT.

dbronstein

04-08-03, 08:12 PM

You've made you're point - ESPN/Disney is the evil empire for the NBA contract. But how does this affect your life? Seriously, if what they are doing is so god-awful, how is it impacting you personally?

Mike123abc

04-08-03, 10:35 PM

It effects everyone that uses cable or DBS, they are driving up rates. If you do not watch the channels you have no choice but to pay more for your service because they are bundled in there driving up your rates.

FTA Michael

04-09-03, 08:06 AM

Disney charges a lot for ESPN, and cable/DBS carriers don't have much choice except to pay it. I think we can all agree on that. But the amount Disney charges for ESPN is not driven by the cost of its programming contracts. ABC Family doesn't go up in price when Drew Carey wants a raise; it goes up when Disney thinks it can get carriers to pay a higher price. So it is with the NBA contract or any other cost. Disney may use it as an excuse, or even a mechanism for raising prices (depending on the contract), but the real reason it charges so much for ESPN is because it can.

dbronstein

04-09-03, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by Mike123abc
It effects everyone that uses cable or DBS, they are driving up rates. If you do not watch the channels you have no choice but to pay more for your service because they are bundled in there driving up your rates.

Right, and this is the point I've been making the whole time. What ESPN is paying for the NBA is relevant to you only in how it ends up affecting your monthly bill. As long as you feel that the programming you watch is worth the money that you are paying for it, you're going to keep subscribing. When the price gets too high, then you'll stop paying.

Dennis

tampa8

04-09-03, 08:38 AM

dbronstein
Your post above about trying to get on the same page is good. It helped me to try to narrow down what we are disagreeing about. I think the difference is this, at least for me.
You are correct, that thru bundling we are paying for channels that we do not watch, but pay for. However, for those channels, we would be paying much more to get the channels we wanted unless you truly only wanted five or six stations. It is possible that if you do watch even just a majority of the stations you get, you are paying less than if you could get them separately.
Now for the sports stations, such as the RSN'S, the NBA package, etc. First the RSN'S. They too are bundled in that the total cost of all of them together is considered when the final cost of a package is made, such as the total cost of the TOP 100 or TOTAL CHOICE. Everyone pays the same package price nationwide. But there are two major problems, the second one being the sticking point at this time. First, unlike the bundling I talked about above, you have no choice to watch the other RSN'S if you wanted to - by law you cannot watch most out of area sports. In constrast, say you never watch the HALMARK channel, but today there is a special you are interested in. So today you watch it. That is not possible with the RSN'S but yet you are paying your part for all of them.
Now Second, (the sticking point) not all RSN'S are created equal. Spome carry much more local team coverage than others. NESN, YES, and apparently the RSNOH are or want to charge much more. Without even considering the merit of if it is worth the extra cost, the problem is if DISH or DIRECT blindly go ahead and pay the extra cost, or in the case of YES add it when it never existed before, guess what? All of our package prices will have to go up, yet only a small percentage of the subscribers will be allowed (by law) to watch it. That is the problem. While a slightly different problem, the NBA contract is an example of of everyone paying, in one way or the other some part of the cost without being able to watch it unless you pay MORE. This goes to what jeffwtux is trying to say. If you also throw in the practice of some (such as Disney though I do not seem them as an evil empire) to insist Dish or Direct - or Cable - take a non popular station to get the popular one, you begin the see the overall problem for subscribers.
Finally, I have to disagree with the broad approach that we must be willing to accept the programming because we continue to pay for it. Why must it wait for people to not be able to affort the package prices, have DIRECT or DISH go out of bussiness, then pay even more? Why not address the problems now? Again, this in not something just being discussed here, it is being discussed thru out the industry. Perhaps we could have a part in sculpting the outcome And by the way, Dish (I'm sure Direct at some point also) has listened and acted directly on subscribers letters before. Some programming has been added by "popular demand" and the 501 became the 508 with the many many improvements very directly from feedback of subscribers. I also recently wrote to DISH (I posted this previously) my willingness to pay more for NESN now that they are carrying many more RED SOX games and that I know there is a problem keeping them because of cost. I suggested it is time to to what we are proposing in this thread. I received a personalized letter back saying this is the type of feedback DISH is looking for and all possible solutions are on the table. I am not someone with rose colored glasses, but if we do nothing that has to be worse than not trying to change things.

dbronstein

04-09-03, 11:59 AM

Tampa,

I agree with you about the RSNs. Only the people who can actually get them should pay for them. I also agree that there is nothing wrong with asking Dish to get us the channels that we want and so forth.

Where we seem to disagree is that I maintain that the only real bargaining chip we have is to cancel our service. We can complain to Dish and the networks all we want but when it comes down to it we have two choices: pay it or don't pay it. If prices go up enough, people will walk, but it hasn't reached that point yet since they keep gaining subs.

Dennis

tampa8

04-09-03, 02:36 PM

I guess on that point we will have to agree to disagree! I would be with you if it were a matter of choice - as in choosing Dish over Direct or Direct over Cable, but since this affects all three it would seem in the end the option would be not to have any service by speaking with my wallet. Instead I guess I hope enough people will speak up, and especially Dish and Direct will realize they have to change the structure now before some do decide not subcribe or just can't afford it. In the very end, if things did get out of control (cost) I suppose everyone not subscribing certainly would work - but by then it could put providers out of business. As others have said, we are not so upset with the providers as we are with programmers or the "System" if you will..

FTA Michael

04-09-03, 10:35 PM

I'm going to try this one last time. Ahem.

Sports network fees do not make our DBS bills go up.

DBS/cable sets prices to maximize profits. If these carriers think they'll make more money raising their rates to us, they will. There's just the way it is, okay?

Simple economics example: I bought a textbook at a bookstore blowout bin for $1. I checked Half.com, and saw that the current lowest price for the book was $65. I offered the book for $64, undercutting my competitors, and sold it.

Now if I had paid $10 for the book, what would I have charged? What if I had paid $60? $70? The answer is, no matter what my expenses were, my profits are maximized by selling the book for $64.

Back to our more complicated topic, programming fee increases are like any other increased expenses -- they squeeze carriers' profit margins. Dish competes with DirecTV, and they both compete with cable. That's why stock prices rose for all three once Dish raised prices this year; all carriers could raise rates without creating a price disadvantage. Dish could just as easily have taken the opposite approach, keeping prices down to build market share. Other carriers would have followed suit, and shareholders would have seen some profits bleeding out.

Also recognize that the carriers use programming costs as a favorite excuse when raising rates. It's undiplomatic to say, "We've run the numbers, and by raising rates $2/month, we'll increase profits by one-third if 94% of our customers stay with us." It's much better to point to increased costs. But the rational consumer should know better.

rbonzer

04-10-03, 02:49 PM

But do those number crunchers find that their profits have been reduced by 8%, and they figure out that its because programming costs have risen, do they just say "Oh well, we are at maximum profit level, we just have to learn to live with it."? By your description, they probably figure that if they raise the rates a little, they'll lose (loose?:lol: ) a few subscribers, but raise their profits. They don't just sit there and watch their profits dwindle, do they?

FTA Michael

04-10-03, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by rbonzer
They don't just sit there and watch their profits dwindle, do they?Well, yes, they can, and they often do. They'll say, "If we raise rates 5% now, we'll lose 4% of our customers, and we won't increase total profits." So they'll wait for an annual price hike if they want to raise prices.

How often has E* raised rates -- once a year? Well how many times have E*'s expenses gone up? I guarantee that the average is more than once a year. Each price hike to customers will drive a percentage of them away, which is why it happens only occasionally.

Businesses don't have to show a profit every quarter. A business can cut profits to boost market share. One example is satellite radio companies, which are losing money in the short run on equipment subsidies while trying to build enough of a subscriber base to sustain their fixed costs. In this case, they're setting prices to maximize long-term profits.

It's all the choice of the business, which is as it should be. Free enterprise and real competition help provide the standard of living we enjoy. Well I'm enjoying it, anyway. :)