Latest on YES ?

[kstevens]

what is the latest on the YES network? I know that D* has it now on their Sports Package. Has E* made any more progress with it?


thanks,

ken

[Scott Greczkowski]

The answer on YES is NO.

I don't think we will be seeing it this season on Dish

[reddice]

Yep just more blackouts for yankees fans on dish.

[jeffwtux]

Does anybody know how ESPN/Disney is doing with their NBA playoffs coverage? I hope they are getting slammed big time. They massively overpaid for the NBA contract and are making powerless cable/DBS subscribers make up the difference. I haven't watched 1 game yet, not even the Pistons(except I will when their on UPN50).

[gogo]

Does anybody know what the main issue is between YES and DISH?

[Dgenx321]

It's all about the $$$$$$$...

[kstevens]

Originally posted by gogo
Does anybody know what the main issue is between YES and DISH?


It was something about Yes making dish charge everyone for the service rather than making it available a la carte.

Ken

[Darkman]

YES looks like NO :)

[dishrich]

Originally posted by kstevens
what is the latest on the YES network? I know that D* has it now on their Sports Package.

It's actually in TC packages in the NY area - you DON'T have to sub to the sports pak to get it...

[BobMurdoch]

Blame George Steinbrenner for trying to force it onto ALL subscribers. Basically, most of the subscribers who DO want it want the other 80% of subscribers to help carry the load, while the people who could care less about the Yankees want aonly those who want it to pay for it (which would mean $5-10 a month, like the old Sportschannel days)

[Greg Bimson]

Blame George Steinbrenner for trying to force it onto ALL subscribers.You mean like how FSNY and MSG are currently forced onto ALL subscribers?

Steinbrenner wants Dish Network to treat YES as Dish Network currently treats FSNY and MSG. Dish Network does not want to add a third RSN to New York subscribers.

[jeffwtux]

Greg: yeah, that's what it's really all about having to buy 3 RSNs for what used to take just 2. Plus, each are probably priced way higher than the 2 previously were. Chalie is putting his foot down against sports teams getting out of hand. He's deciding to to be the leader in fighting the war against sports salaries getting out of hand. He's absolutely right. YES, NESN, FSOH, and ESPN are all circumventing the free market by not allowing the consumer to set the demand level for these stations.

[dbronstein]

Originally posted by jeffwtux
YES, NESN, FSOH, and ESPN are all circumventing the free market by not allowing the consumer to set the demand level for these stations.

Satellite/cable networks aren't sold in a free market. If it was really a free market, customers would subscribe directly to the networks and Dish, DirecTV, and the cable companies wouldn't exist. You would put a dish up and then call ESPN to subscribe, then call HBO, then FX, then CNN, and so on. And each one would give you a separate converter box so you could watch their channel, and every month you'd get a separate bill from each channel. And before you say "they could all use the same box", that would mean they'd have to agree to use a common platform, and now it's no longer a free market.

How many people would really want to deal with that? My guess is very few. It would be great to be able to subscribe to individual channels, but I don't want the headache of having to deal with 20 separate companies just to watch TV.

Since the true free market really isn't feasible, we have the current setup where you subscribe to a provider and they contract with the networks. Certainly the system has it's flaws, but IMO it's still much better than the alternative.

Dennis

[jeffwtux]

It isn't better when companies are using it to circumvent the free market. I'm sick of people giving copout explanations like, "it's worth $8 if somebody will pay it". They aren't making enough money using free market models where the CONSUMER IS SETTING THE DEMAND AND HAS THE CHOCIE, so they decide to get their money from a market where they consumer has NO CHOICE, that's an outrage. If somebody want's to get cable TV in NYC they must pay for the NYY which weren't making enough money from MSG so they want subscribers to make up the difference, and many have no choice. That's wrong. Once again, IMHO, nothing is as bad as what ESPN has done with the NBA. THAT IS BY FAR THE BIGGEST FRAUD IN THE HISTORY OF SPORTS TELEVISION.

[AllieVi]

As I understand it, Charlie offered to carry YES a la carte, let YES set the price and let YES keep all of the revenue. That's really bending over backwards on Charlie's part and if those really are the facts of the matter, I don't blame Charlie for his decision.

[dbronstein]

Then let me ask you this: Suppose you had the option to get ESPN a la carte, and pre-NBA, you were paying $7 a month for it. Then they made the NBA deal and raised the price to $10 a month. Would you still consider that to be violating the free market?

[Anthony]

Not to beat a dead horse but I have to get this off my chest. The only difference between a local station and a local RSN is greed. How do your local stations make a living? They get paid for commercial time. How do RSNs make a living. They get paid for commercial time and they get paid major $$s by satellite and cable networks and they get paid major $$s by major networks for the transmission of certain games. What makes the RSN so special. They should derive their revenue like any other local channel. If it's not enough for them, tough. They are still just a local channel. They could trim their expenses and we all know where this argument would lead. So as for Dish holding out on YES, why the hell not. But this should apply to all RSNs. If they can't operate like all other local networks, get in a different line of business. Just because sports teams depend on RSN revenue to help fill their pockets so they can pay their overpriced talent doesn't make it o.k. to jerk us all around. We pay for their greed at the ball parks (all sports), in our cable/satellite bills, in sports merchandising and in the increased commercial load on radio and tv. They take it where they can get it. We've taken it in the you know what. And it hurts.

[Greg Bimson]

As I understand it, Charlie offered to carry YES a la carte, let YES set the price and let YES keep all of the revenue. That's really bending over backwards on Charlie's part and if those really are the facts of the matter, I don't blame Charlie for his decision.And as I understand it, YES wants the same terms and conditions as Fox Sports New York and MSG. Who is to blame Steinbrenner for wanting to be treated equally as the other RSN's?

As to this "free market" definition, it is the free market that allowed these RSN's to be created, the free market that allowed cablers to create base and premium packages, and the free market that determined they get placed into lowest general tiers of service.

Show me the first provider that removes an RSN or ESPN, and you'll see a provider that loses marketshare. Those channels generally get the better ratings on multichannel services, but they are far from getting the ratings that the OTA networks receive.

And that is free market. Neither you nor I may like it, but it is.

[jrbdmb]

Originally posted by Anthony
Not to beat a dead horse but I have to get this off my chest. The only difference between a local station and a local RSN is greed. How do your local stations make a living? They get paid for commercial time. How do RSNs make a living. They get paid for commercial time and they get paid major $$s by satellite and cable networks and they get paid major $$s by major networks for the transmission of certain games. What makes the RSN so special. They should derive their revenue like any other local channel.RSNs charge big $$$ for carriage because they can (free market stuff again). They know that cable and satellite companies will pay up because the alternative (no RSN) means that many subscribers will bolt for another service. For examples, refer to Dish and Cablevision vs. YES, Dish and DirecTV vs. Comcast Sportsnet (Philly), etc.

In the TV foodchain, RSNs and ESPN are at the top of the heap, followed by the NETs, big cable channels like CNN / TBS, small or niche channels like Bravo / TechTV, then small local OTAs, and at the bottom the shopping channels. (Reorder the above slightly if you wish.) As you move from top to bottom, you go from channels charging $2 or more per subscriber to channels charging less than $1 to "must carry" channels that are free to channels that pay to be carried. You can bet if Bravo or the local independent OTA station or QVC could charge $5 a month to be carried, they would. But they can't. Free market at work again.

The only thing we can hope for is that the cable / satellite companies start to balk at the prices RSNs and ESPN charge. The issues surrounding the launch of ESPN-HD show that is starting to happen.

[FTA Michael]

Originally posted by Anthony
The only difference between a local station and a local RSN is greed. How do your local stations make a living? They get paid for commercial time. How do RSNs make a living. They get paid for commercial time and they get paid major $$s by satellite and cable networks ...For popular local stations, that is no difference. They too get paid by carriers, directly or indirectly, for retransmission consent.Just because sports teams depend on RSN revenue to help fill their pockets so they can pay their overpriced talent ...Teams don't "depend" on any revenue; they'll just take it if it's available. Owners fill their pockets, then with collective bargaining, those who actually play the games get a share of those revenues.

Rule of Thumb: If your venue sells out, then the tickets weren't overpriced. ;)

[Cheyenne]

Just say NO !

[Darkman]

some say: "when some say NO - lol - they really mean YES" :D

[abospaum]

My big question is even if YES were put on Dish how would it work? I know that the RSN's blackout all out of area games as ruled by MLB, NHL, NBA, etc. Is YES considered a National network? National broadcasts are not blacked out and this is why some of the superstations such as TBS, WGN, etc can broadcast games throughout the country.

When I lived in Southern NJ and I had MSG and FSNY all of the games were blacked out and I was just getting the other programming.

When people get YES and live outside of the New York regional area as defined by the sports leagues do they get every broadcast? If they do then why don't the RSN's? I hate the Yankees and I would rather see the Mets play.

[dbronstein]

YES is a regional network and it would have the same blackouts as the other NY RSNs.

[abospaum]

Why would anyone outside of NY want YES? Also how could George expect any to want his channel if his best product is unavailable to most viewers.

[cnsf]

Originally posted by BobMurdoch
Basically, most of the subscribers who DO want it want the other 80% of subscribers to help carry the load, while the people who could care less about the Yankees want aonly those who want it to pay for it (which would mean $5-10 a month, like the old Sportschannel days)

uh, isn't this done on the other 70 channels you don't regularly watch? I find it hard to believe most people watch all 200 some odd channels regularly.

I, for one, don't watch the shopping channels, many of the news channels, the religious channels, the Soap channel, etc.