ESPN2HD starting Jan/05...will DISHNETWORK CARRY IT?!?!?!!

[lionsrule]

The title kind of says it all. Espn2 in HD will start broadcasting in HD this Jan. Start writing and calling if sports in HD is your thing. I know I will!!

[SimpleSimon]

This is what Charlie will say: No compelling content, and no one watches those "mainstream" sporting events - that's why we carry nothing but cricket, hacky sack, lacrosse, and lawn bowling.

[Jason Nipp]

This is what Charlie will say: No compelling content, and no one watches those "mainstream" sporting events - that's why we carry nothing but cricket, hacky sack, lacrosse, and lawn bowling.

Don't forget Lawn Darts, Figure Skating, and MLS Soccer... :D

[Cyclone]

Oh, good I can re-use my BravoHD+ rant.


Why in the hell doesn't Dish have BravoHD+ today! DirectTV does and they suck. Dish is certainly better than sucky DirectTV Right!?! Well. now that the Olympics are over, Dish has a full TP to dedicate to HD.. Right!!?! Well they should be able to fit BravoHD+ on there, I mean WTF.... Right!!?! Didn't they negotiate with the same NBC Suits that DirecTV did to get the Olympic HD Channel?? Didn't those suits say "Hey, how about some NBC-HD Distant Locals and BravoHD+ to go with that Olympic Showcase & Highlights channels?". !!!?!!!.

Right now, Right this very minute, I bet that some Circle D' Toliet dancer is spinning on some rope in HDTV!!?! and I can't see it!!?! I bet Martin Sheen just solved some international crisis in HD and we are missing it !!!?!

{insert comments about being a premium customer here and my money is worth a seat on Dish network's board}

We should have BravoHD+ right now!!?! Compel *this* muchachos!!!?!!


Just replace Bravo with ESPN2.

[SimpleSimon]

:D :rolling:

[Jason Nipp]

Oh, good I can re-use my BravoHD+ rant.

Cyclone...I can appreciate wanting more available HD programming...I want more too...BUT...I will be patient until AMC-15 is in orbit and functional...3 HD channels per Tp sucks...A lot of us have admitted the plummeted PQ because of this...I would rather have them arrange the capacity back to 2 ch per Tp as was before the Olympics...Until the additional Bandwidth is ready...

Just my humble .02

Jason

[BFG]

people are speculating that the article released by multichannel news says that the launches of ESPN2-HD and ESPNU are already covered in the new negotitated bundled ESPN programming fees and that it's just a matter of adding them, but we'll see.

[Cyclone]

Simon gets it, nippjas, read between the lines. :D

[Jason Nipp]

Simon gets it, nippjas, read between the lines. :D

I saw your intent and rant fairly clearly...I was just adding my humble opinion in the mix as others not eluding to this have brought up wanting the slot filled with "Useless" toilet dancers... :sure: I just want to go back to watching a movie on HBO-HD where someones face doesn't explode into a million pixels... :lol:

[Foxbat]

I just want to go back to watching a movie on HBO-HD where someones face doesn't explode into a million pixels...Isn't that the problem? Instead of a million, the face is exploding into only 4,096 pixels?

[Jason Nipp]

Isn't that the problem? Instead of a million, the face is exploding into only 4,096 pixels?

Hey now...be nice....let me have my quality rant time... ;)

[Slordak]

people are speculating that the article released by multichannel news says that the launches of ESPN2-HD and ESPNU are already covered in the new negotitated bundled ESPN programming fees and that it's just a matter of adding them, but we'll see.
It better be. If ESPN decides that each of these channels is worth $2 or $3 per month per subscriber (in addition to what they're already getting for duplicate SD channels), Charlie is going to pass that cost directly on to us without a second thought.

We need to start getting some sort of discount for channels where we pay for the package which contains the SD version; the HD version of the same channel should be discounted for us.

[jrb531]

If ESPN wants $5 extra for that channel they can just keep it. Until I am able to pick and choose my channels please do not force me to pay for things I do not watch.

I agree that the HD package from Dish sucks. Old movies I can rent for 99 cents and watch on DVD and watching people play poker in High Def is "not" what I thought I was paying for.

Only channel I really watch is Discovery and even that channel lacks some content and repeats alot.

I called Dish and asked if I could cancel my mandatory $10 per month HD Package (until they get real HD content) and subscribe to HBO or any other HD that shows somewhat current movies and I was told no (I got that reduced cost 811 and had to get 12 months of HD)

Either way I have 8 months to go and if the HD is not seriously upgraded I'll just cancel and wait out real HD programming.

I would be more happy if they would just cancel all HD and add the bandwidth to making the SD channel look better. The high compression is getting pretty bad on the normal channels.

[BobMurdoch]

Actually the poker shows aren't in high def on ESPN. They're upconverted.

I like the idea of ESPN2 HD because they show a lot of baseball. Since we aren't going to seeing any chance of HD baseball in the Extra Innings package anytime soon, I'll take what I can get. Now how about fixing the rules so I can actually watch ALL of the games on ESPN/ESPN2 HD (So the Mets and Yankee games aren't blacked out for me in NJ).

[Mark Lamutt]

If ESPN wants $5 extra for that channel they can just keep it. Until I am able to pick and choose my channels please do not force me to pay for things I do not watch.

I agree that the HD package from Dish sucks. Old movies I can rent for 99 cents and watch on DVD and watching people play poker in High Def is "not" what I thought I was paying for.

Only channel I really watch is Discovery and even that channel lacks some content and repeats alot.

I called Dish and asked if I could cancel my mandatory $10 per month HD Package (until they get real HD content) and subscribe to HBO or any other HD that shows somewhat current movies and I was told no (I got that reduced cost 811 and had to get 12 months of HD)

Either way I have 8 months to go and if the HD is not seriously upgraded I'll just cancel and wait out real HD programming.

I would be more happy if they would just cancel all HD and add the bandwidth to making the SD channel look better. The high compression is getting pretty bad on the normal channels.

I hate to say it, but this reponse is exactly why Charlie keeps talking about "compelling content"...currently you don't find the current HD offerings compelling, so why should he add something new to the mix that you also won't find compelling? (The "you" isn't just you, jrb531, it's everyone saying the same thing here.)

[invaliduser88]

If Dish can get ESPN2-HD for free, then Charlie will add it to the HD pack. If not, he won't.

Compelling content = $0 to Charlie

Why do you think they got TNT-HD up so quickly and Bravo-HD got snubbed.

Other than HBO-HD and SHO-HD, I get all my HD via OTA. And there is a helluva lot more compelling content OTA than what is being offered on Dish at this time.

[JohnH]

You have to wait until the US Open is over to get Bravo HD+. There is no compelling HD content until then. :D

It will take a lot more than AMC 15 to get ESPN 2 HD. Bunches of SuperDISHes have to be installed somewhere.

[BobMurdoch]

Pay no attention to the naysayers. Give us HD now to compete with cable who is giving out HD channels by the bucketload now in my area (must resist..... don't trust the wired ones..... but.... their content too compelling........ )

God help me when Cablevision starts to look attractive......

[jrb531]

I hate to say it but I agree with Charlie then. While some people would rather watch "boring" HD content over good SD stuff.... I would not.

Now give me the good stuff in HD and I'm all for it but as I said in a prior post... Old movies in HD and content that HD does little to enhance (well the cards in the poker shows look real sharp ROTFL) do little to excite me about HD.

"real" sporting everts (and by real I mean Baseball, Football and Hockey) as well as current movies would make HD a joy to watch. As it stands now the best channel for showing off HD is still the Demo channel :)

If not for Discovery the entire HD package would be a joke IMHO.

Until the main channels start showing "real" HD content HD will always be a fringe service. Personally I want to see Southpark in HD. I can't wait to see how clear and sharp Southpark is in HD :)

In closing I agree that OTA HD is much better and I get that for free with tons of stations in Chicago.

[mrdectown]

As much as people bash the company, I am sure glad i have voom. for this particular reason alone. no matter what if a new hd channel is coming out they will have it. i should be getting slammed pretty hard for the above statement but they are just words and my opinion.

[Cholly]

It must be nice to have lots of OTA HD. I get PBS HD and ABC HD - period. Rumor has it that the local Fox station will be offering HD soon. No local NBC OTA, and local CBS outlet has lion's share of market and could care less about HD. I'm looking forward to Monday night football in HD. That should be great!
As to the satellite offerings: I don't have HBO or Showtime, so miss the stuff they have to offer. I enjoy some of the programs they have on HDNet and Discovery HD Theater, but the amount of new content is limited. Old shows are repeated over & over.

[joebird]

It will take a lot more than AMC 15 to get ESPN 2 HD. Bunches of SuperDISHes have to be installed somewhere.

I was just wondering where they were going to park AMC-15. Now I think I know the answer. :(

[jerryez]

The announcement said 100 HD programs the first year. I do not consider 100 HD progrmas compelling, but that is about the same as ESPN 1 HD and Dish carries it. 100 HD programs is less than one every 3 days. What do we get the other 71 hours. Upconverted ****.

[chewey]

ESPN-HD can't even fill their schedule with all hd content right now. Why add a second hd channel?

Are we gonna get the strong man contest in hd?

ESPN is doing better though, this weekend they have 2 college games in hd and an nfl game on sunday. Although their schedule doesn't show any baseball in hd for the rest of the season.

[SimpleSimon]

It will take a lot more than AMC 15 to get ESPN 2 HD. Bunches of SuperDISHes have to be installed somewhere.One has nothing to do with the other - unless E*'s OLD plan of HD on 105 comes back to life, but I consider that unlikely.
I was just wondering where they were going to park AMC-15. Now I think I know the answer.It's going to 105 to replace (IIRC) AMC-2.

[Slordak]

ESPN-HD can't even fill their schedule with all hd content right now. Why add a second hd channel?

Are we gonna get the strong man contest in hd?

ESPN is doing better though, this weekend they have 2 college games in hd and an nfl game on sunday. Although their schedule doesn't show any baseball in hd for the rest of the season.
I'm inclined to agree that they *are* doing better than they were a number of months back. They now have an HD event almost every day, or at least every other day, even if the majority of the programming shown on the channel is still standard definition.

However, I also agree that there's no point in adding ESPN2-HD when their existing channel doesn't have around the clock HD. Why not take events from all of the ESPN channels, and whichever ones are being shown in HD, put *that* event on ESPN-HD? I.e. ESPN-HD shouldn't just be a mirror of the standard definition ESPN, it should be a mirror of any ESPN channel which is showing an event which is available in high definition. Otherwise the channel is just a wasted duplicated.

[mikeinaustin]

i have no interest in bravo-hd, do any of you really miss not seeing these shows in hd?

http://www.bravotv.com/This_Weeks_Features/

I would much rather have tnt-hd than bravo-hd and i know my friends with direct tv hd equipment would love to get tnt-hd and have bravo-hd dumped.

i would like to see a lot more hd ppv channels on dish but agree with others that espn2-hd isn't needed when espn-hd still has a lot of sd content.

[BobMurdoch]

Hey... Queer Eye and Celebrity Poker in HD....? Sure I'd go for it.....

Bottom Line, E* HAS to start embracing HD again. D* threw down the gauntlet with their announcement that they will radically expand their bandwidth capabilities next year. Voom is all but dead from that announcement as they will have lost their competitive edge (plus the elimination of incentives and receiver subsidies has decimated the new subscribe numbers), and cable loses the ONE thing that HAD been going in their favor in their recent attempts slow down or stop the hemorraging market share... local HD.

And to get back on topic, ESPN2 HD is needed as HD Baseball on Sundays goes away in September otherwise as the NFL has the lock on the Sunday Night prime time slot. ESPN has REALLY stepped up to the plate recently. More HD games, Gorgeous SportsCenter pictures (both studio and highlights thanks to FOX and CBS going HD), with Baseball Tonight going HD in the Spring. NHL games (after a labor settlement) should look great as well.

It's kind of funny how these things work..... Sports and Porn tend to drive the evolutionary leaps in TV and the electronics that provide the content for them. First, VCRs, then big screen TVs, surround sound, DVD players, PVRs, and now HD. They all meet to increase the wow factor. 10 years from now, all analog TV should hopefully be dead and these first steps need to be made to help the transition.

[Cyclone]

Actually, that is the wrong link. You'll need to press the "HD+" link at the bottom to get to the HD+ channel's page.

Here is the direct link.

http://www.bravotv.com/HDPlus/

[jrb531]

I have no issue with adding all sorts of HD.... my issue is forcing people who do not want these channels to pay for them.

Already ESPN is being forced on everyone whether they like sports or not. This is not an issue with "one" espn channel being added to the basic package but an entire slew pf espn channel which are "very" expensive being forced on us.

Logic would dictate that maybe one espn channel would be included in the basic package and the rest on the higher tier pachages or the "sports" pachage but this in not the case and we all know why.

If they want to add ESPN HD... please do but let me decide if I want to pay for it.

What I fear is yet another forced fee increase for a channel that....

1. Not everyone will watch
2. Even if you can watch it you may not have HD to be able to view it
3. Even if you can watch and have HD maybe you do not want to pay for it

-JB

[Stewart Vernon]

The thing about extra channels is kind of like deals at the fast food places...

If McDonalds has a quarter-pounder for $2.49... BUT they are offering a deal 2 for $2... then it is better for me to buy 2 for $2, even if I can't eat the second one... than to pay $2.49 for just one.

That's how I see the extra channels on Dish... Most of the channels aren't ones I watch, but I watch enough of them to feel ok with what I pay month-to-month. Unless they could offer a package that JUST had my favorite channels and was the same or less than I'm paying now... it wouldn't be worth it.

And since a la carte has been discussed to death over and over... I think most of us recognize the business reality that if we all got to choose our channels and only pay for what we want to watch... we'd all be paying higher bills.

I happen to like ESPN, and would like to see ESPN2HD sometime... and I know some folks will be paying a part of the cost even if they never watch it... but I'm paying, for instance, for Lifetime and it's family of similar channels that I never watch... and I'm not complaining about that because I know in the long run my bill is lower for it.

[garypen]

ESPN2HD starting Jan/05...will DISHNETWORK CARRY IT?!?!?!! Is the Pope Jewish?

[jrb531]

The thing about extra channels is kind of like deals at the fast food places...

If McDonalds has a quarter-pounder for $2.49... BUT they are offering a deal 2 for $2... then it is better for me to buy 2 for $2, even if I can't eat the second one... than to pay $2.49 for just one.

That's how I see the extra channels on Dish... Most of the channels aren't ones I watch, but I watch enough of them to feel ok with what I pay month-to-month. Unless they could offer a package that JUST had my favorite channels and was the same or less than I'm paying now... it wouldn't be worth it.

And since a la carte has been discussed to death over and over... I think most of us recognize the business reality that if we all got to choose our channels and only pay for what we want to watch... we'd all be paying higher bills.

I happen to like ESPN, and would like to see ESPN2HD sometime... and I know some folks will be paying a part of the cost even if they never watch it... but I'm paying, for instance, for Lifetime and it's family of similar channels that I never watch... and I'm not complaining about that because I know in the long run my bill is lower for it.


If it all balances out... you watch sports but not lifetime.... I watch lifetime but not sports then why don't you pay for sports, I pay for lifetime and everyone is happy?

Reason:

Because ESPN is a "ton" more expensive than a lifetime and the only way to allow the ESPN's of the world to continue to support their expensive multi-billion $$$ programming is to "force" everyone to pay a little which is now starting to become a lot!

IMHO 10 lifetimes prob cost less than 1 ESPN so while I understand your thinking.... this only makes sense if all the channels cost the same.

The only "facts" about ala-cart are this:

1. The majority of customers want it.
2. Programmers do not want it as it would hurt their profits

Result: Screw the customers.

-JB

[JohnH]

The ultimate ala carte boils down to Single channel per carrier on C or Ku band and you pay your share of the uplink costs and production costs. If you are the first subscriber, you pay it all. See if you can afford that. You need those other subscribers that don't want the channel to help you pay for it.

Could be the people that want ESPN are actually helping you get your channel at a reasonable price.

[Stewart Vernon]

If it all balances out... you watch sports but not lifetime.... I watch lifetime but not sports then why don't you pay for sports, I pay for lifetime and everyone is happy?

Here's the thing, whether you realize it or not... there are more viewers that want/pay for ESPN I suspect than Lifetime... and that is not a slam on quality of programming on Lifetime.

IF I paid for ESPN, my bill would be higher because of the lack of subsidizing from non-ESPN, but I believe there would still be enough folks to keep it affordable at this point and existent.

However, Lifetime might increase in price to the point where you didn't think it was worth paying... Think, for instance Top 60 programming at $40 (67 cents per channel or thereabouts) vs $2-$5 for just the channels you want... then realize that if there aren't enough that want the channel, then it will go away.

Take the recent failing of Voom for instance... mustering 50K subscribers in part because of initially high entry price and later still high monthly price for less channels...

New startup channels would almost assuredly fail unless they were from a big company willing to subsidize until viewership went up... independent channels would never get off the ground because they'd have to be $40 pay-per-view type prices unless they could get a couple hundred thousand people to pay for it!

The only "facts" about ala-cart are this:

1. The majority of customers want it.
2. Programmers do not want it as it would hurt their profits

Result: Screw the customers.

-JB

I wouldn't say "majority"... I think the majority of people once they see the math of how it works... that we all pay 50 cents or so per channel for ones we don't want... so we can just pay 50 cents for the ones we want... is better than paying $2-$5 for just the channels we want, and not having some of the channels exist for lack of subscribers.

[jrb531]

But some channels cost a ton more and there is ZERO incentive to keep those costs down as long as "everyone" is forced to pay.

This is the real issue. Why does ESPN seemingly have an endless supply of cash to toss at programming? Because we are forced to pay and have no choice in the matter.

If the customer could elect to cancel channels that got out of hand then there would be some sort of check to this entire mess.

How many channels of ESPN should we be forced to pay for? At what point does ESPN become a premium channel like HBO?

Hey... better yet.... why not "force" everyone to take the full HBO package? By your own logic would this not lower the price of HBO for everyone?

Instead of $14 per month for HBO we could all pay only $6 because we are "forcing" others to subsidize the channel for us.

I'm sorry I just fail to see how ESPN now differs from HBO or stars or Showtime. Why force one set of channels and not the others?

This was different when we had one channel of ESPN that did not cost a ton of $$$. Now we have an entire ESPN lineup that really odes cost alot of $$$ and instead of breaking it off like the other pay channels we are all forced to pay for it.

ESPN offers a highly specialized form of programming. There is no reason to force people to pay for all these channels.

Can anyone come up with a logical reason why EPSN now differs from HBO? Sure one offers movies and original programming while ESPN offers sports but to assume that the majority of the people "want" ESPN so it should be forced on everyone while only a minority of people would like HBO - thus allowing HBO to be a separate package seems silly at best. In fact, IMHO, more people would prefer HBO over ESPN.

And I'll end this with a question for all who have the guts to answer....

If ESPN is so beloved and wanted by the majority of the people no matter the cost then why do they "force" everyone to take it? Surely if it is so popular people would be knocking down the doors to subscribe to it. Correct?

Deep down we all know that the entire issue of ala-cart scares the hell out of the big business. They are afraid that once the people are allowed a choice they will vote with their pocketbooks and end the never ending rising costs of pay TV and an entire slew of crap channels will go under.

When does it end? 100 channels? 500? 1000? when does the market become saturated to the point that we no longer need all these channels.

If they want to have 10,000 channels then fine by me.... just don't "make" me pay for them all if "I" only want 50 :)

-JB

[James Long]

The less popular but cheap channels would never see the light of day under a la carte. Channels that can only survive on a penny per subscriber because there are 25 million paying that penny. a la carte would cost more for the per subscriber recordkeeping than the subscriber fee!

I'd like to see something done with the big guys that add $$$ per subscriber to the packages. But there has to be a place for the basics to give them a chance of being carried.

JL

[jrb531]

I am not against packages. Please do not think that. IMHO once a channel/set of channels going over twice the "average" cost per "basic" channel then they need to split off the expensive package to a subscription based setup like HBO.

This will have two effects...

1. It will provide incentive to keep spiraling costs in line with the rest of the channels as you would need to keep your costs down or risk being "unbungled" from basic.

2. If will keep basic pay TV down as the channels that cost too much will be unbungled into subscription only and thus allow all those less popular channels to survive in the basic package.

How can anyone be against this? Well any consumers that is LOL. By setting the limit to "twice" the "average" basic channel cost you allow some flexability for different types of channels yet you do set some limit. Depending on the economics (I admit I do not know the exact per channel cost for all the channels) you could make this limit even three times if that worked but the point is to set some hard price limit.

This would have to be forced on big business because they are most certainly NOT going to regulate themselves. The entire problem is present because they already insist that you take "all" the channels or you get none of them.

-JB

[garypen]

The type of theme packs offered by BEV is a nice comprimise between the current humungo packs and a la carte.

Dish commercial services are offered that way, too. There are theme packs, or you can choose from a couple of all-inclusive type packs.

[jrb531]

The type of theme packs offered by BEV is a nice comprimise between the current humungo packs and a la carte.

Dish commercial services are offered that way, too. There are theme packs, or you can choose from a couple of all-inclusive type packs.

So why do you think the rest of us are not offered the same "theme" packages?

The skeptic would answer that they would lose revenue.
The skeptic would answer that what is best for big business is the current system.
The skeptic would answer that big business and their lobbyists are the reason the existing system still stands.

The government is willing to go after Microsoft yet "forced" packaging of channels is ok? No friggin way!

But the existing system stands.

-JB

P.S. Anyone find is "extreamely" coinicidental that almost all pay TV companies just "happen" to have three main teirs of basic programming with a "sprinkle" of just enough of each type of programming in each to try to maximize the number of people having to take the most expensive package?

P.P.S. Having "theme packages" makes so much sense that you have to wonder why we do not have such a setup.... well until you realize that people who only watch sports might only take that one package or people who only watch Mysterys might only like those channels yadda yadda :)

The greatest task for big business is figureing a way to separate as much $$$ as possible from our pockets - right or wrong

[Stewart Vernon]

Packages like that simply wouldn't work... Take HBO... for $14 or so dollars, for how many channels? I forget how many HBOs there are, but a lot is duplication like HBOE and HBOW just being 3 hours off from each other.

Now... say it cost $15 for the Lifetime family... $15 for ESPN family... $15 for the cartoon channels... and so forth.

Unless you only wanted 1 package, any 2 would cost about as much as the basic Top 60 costs right now... take 3 packages and you get past that... it adds up quickly.

I'm paying for a LOT of channels that I don't watch... but I know that even if I could get those channels out, I'd end up paying about the same because what I did want would cost more.

Startup channels, as mentioned a couple of times wouldn't get to start because they'd be priced so high that no one would take a chance. We wouldn't have SciFi or Bravo or things like that if they weren't bundled with other channels.

As for ESPN being forced on us... I think if you looked into it, what you'd actually find is that... Disney owns ABC, ESPN, and a few other things... So many people want ESPN that Disney has the ability to force OTHER channels on us that we don't care about... like how Disney east & west are part of basic packages now where they used to be premium channels... Disney is able to force those channels on us because we want ESPN so much that we'll take other channels they offer.

Same thing happened recently with the Viacom negotiations... Viacom wanted to force some new channels and price increases... and threatened to take away popular channels they knew we wanted.

Think about your phone bill too... If you live in a big city, it is cheaper for the phone company to provide you service... than the guy who lives 75 miles out of the city on his 100 acre farmland... BUT he pays the same phone bill as you do... because they average out their expenses across all bills.

IF we didn't subsidize the farmer... his phone bill would be insane OR he wouldn't have a phone... same kind of thing with the cable/satellite channels... our price could be the same for less channels, and have a lot of channels missing... or the price-per-channel could be some insane high amount to pay for its existence... or we could all chip in a few bucks so everyone has the channels they want and some they don't.

I pay taxes, and some of that tax money goes to schools that I don't attend and don't have children that attend... to roads that I don't drive on... to welfare that I'm not claiming, and so forth.

[jrb531]

Why does everyone assume that if you took out the expensive ESPN and made it a $5 per month add on package that all the remaining channels would suddenly get so expensive?

As far as duplication goes.... does every channel of ESPN have original non-duplictaed content.

IMHO we are being fed a line of total BS from big business. The cost to produce and run all these channels is the same no matter how you package them.

I would prefer to pay for what I watch and others would prefer that I help pay for what they watch. This is not fair and no matter how many times you say it telling people who watch 6 channels that it is somehow in their best interest to make them pay for another 20 channels does not make any sense at all.

Basic is about $40 per month give or take.

If every channel had a fixed price why can't I just pay $1 per channel per month?

So ESPN might cost $5 as a semi-premium channel.... so what? If the programming is so great people will pay anything they ask correct?

Or are they more afraid that once you unbungle ESPN then every time ESPN want's to bit a billion dollars for the NFL and are forced to raise fees 20% people may drop ESPN?

Is there are limits to the current set up for pricing? As long as ESPN is forced on everyone (or you can cancel pay-tv of course LOL) what stops ESPN from raising prices every year 20%??????

All so we can give the over-paid spoiled athletes (sp?) 5 million a year instead of 1 million, pay $50 a ticket instead of $25 and so on.

By supporting the current system (and not revolting like we should!) we are making a bad system worse. There is ZERO competition as long as the programmers who supply the channels are in total control to do what they want, charge what they want with no option for us other that to give up all pay tv.

The government has an issue with the two dish companies merging (better to duplicate everything twice and thus twice the costs to "pretend" we have more competition) but they have no problem with the programming providers forcing everyone into a "take it or leave it" choice as far as programming.

And since I cannot tell Disney to jump in the lake and cancel "their" portion of my Dish Bill I have zero choice at all. The same setup exists for D* and E* and cable. I have packages that I cannot break and they all happen to be three tiers :)

So every year the bills get higher, we get more channels (last time I checked I could still only watch one thing at a time LOL), the same number of packages and the same people telling us that we really are better off with little choice as it saves us so much $$$.

The higher the bills get the more $$$ I save.... is that what you are really saying?

10 years ago we have (example) 30 channels and 3 packages (10 channels each)
today we have 90 channels and 3 packages (30 channels each)

What is this fixation with only 3 packages????

Come on now... we all know.... this lack of choice makes more $$$ for them and cost us and still people want to say that we are better off.

If I wanted to pay $5 a month for one channel (that's all I watched) then why won't they take my money?

If I paid all their costs, bought my own equipment, paid for my own installation and still only wanted one channel then why won't they sell it to me?

We know why.... they are so afraid that once the current "rip off" system is broken there would be no going back.

Change is coming soon.... mark my words. One day we will get an honest politician (do they exists?) who will not be bought off by the lobbyists who will bring this unfair setup to an end.

-JB

[James Long]

P.S. Anyone find is "extreamely" coinicidental that almost all pay TV companies just "happen" to have three main teirs of basic programming with a "sprinkle" of just enough of each type of programming in each to try to maximize the number of people having to take the most expensive package?When marketing works it is copied. In E*'s case, they started with a cheap basic package (one tier) years ago and added channels. At a certain point they didn't want to raise that package price, so they put new channels in a new tier. They have worked their way up to a three tier system. (D* ditched their low tier.) It isn't like they started with all 220+ channels and played eaney meeny miney mo to pick the tier.

I find little nepharious in the fact that tiers exist across the services. Many have done what E* did and only added channels and most of the price to the higher packages. Most services like having a low price package for advertising (as low as) and and for low income people who simply would not subscribe when the price gets too high. (I'd like to see "lifeline" DBS myself - similar to lifeline cable.)

Why does everyone assume that if you took out the expensive ESPN and made it a $5 per month add on package that all the remaining channels would suddenly get so expensive?Because ESPN may only reflect $3 of that $5 - which means the package price wouldn't drop by $5 - and when ESPN finds out they are not getting their (assuming $3 per sub) $33 million dollar monthly check from E* they are going to want more per sub to make up for the loss. We could have 1/4th of all subscribers paying $12 per month to get ESPN channels. Or, worse yet, 1/2 of all subscribers paying $10 per month with ESPN getting $6 per sub instead of $3 - ESPN breaks even and E* makes a ton of money thanks to a la carte.

JL

[jrb531]

When marketing works it is copied. In E*'s case, they started with a cheap basic package (one tier) years ago and added channels. At a certain point they didn't want to raise that package price, so they put new channels in a new tier. They have worked their way up to a three tier system. (D* ditched their low tier.) It isn't like they started with all 220+ channels and played eaney meeny miney mo to pick the tier.

I find little nepharious in the fact that tiers exist across the services. Many have done what E* did and only added channels and most of the price to the higher packages. Most services like having a low price package for advertising (as low as) and and for low income people who simply would not subscribe when the price gets too high. (I'd like to see "lifeline" DBS myself - similar to lifeline cable.)

Because ESPN may only reflect $3 of that $5 - which means the package price wouldn't drop by $5 - and when ESPN finds out they are not getting their (assuming $3 per sub) $33 million dollar monthly check from E* they are going to want more per sub to make up for the loss. We could have 1/4th of all subscribers paying $12 per month to get ESPN channels. Or, worse yet, 1/2 of all subscribers paying $10 per month with ESPN getting $6 per sub instead of $3 - ESPN breaks even and E* makes a ton of money thanks to a la carte.

JL

I don't care what they would charge for ESPN because I would not be paying for it. Why am I supposed to be forced to pay for ESPN just so you can get it cheaper for yourself.

This is the part I just can't seem to understand - why people should help pay for anything they don't want.

Tell you what.... I want HBO. I think HBO costs too much so why don't you help me pay for it? Surely if "everyone" was forced to pay for HBO it would become cheaper because the cost of keeping HBO going would be spread out so much more if everyone "had" to pay for it. This is the exact same logic you are trying to use for ESPN so why is one ok and not the other?

-JB

[James Long]

I don't care what they would charge for ESPN because I would not be paying for it.Neither would I. But I bet we both would be paying E* about the same for the rest of the channels with ESPN removed. (No discount for losing ESPN.)This is the exact same logic you are trying to use for ESPN so why is one ok and not the other?HBO wants to be marketed as a premium service. ESPN does not. ESPN started out as one basic channel and grew, but they have always desired 'basic' placement. HBO started out as a premium service and does not desire any other placement.

JL

[jrb531]

Do you not agree that ESPN has grown out of the basic formula. How many other basic channels have multiple channels? How many have HD?

ESPN may want to be called basic but they aint :)

-JB

[Stewart Vernon]

Why does everyone assume that if you took out the expensive ESPN and made it a $5 per month add on package that all the remaining channels would suddenly get so expensive?

We could ask why do you assume that if ESPN was removed from your package of programming that your bill would be cheaper?

As far as duplication goes.... does every channel of ESPN have original non-duplictaed content.

No, which is why I wasn't excited (and don't feel bad Dish doesn't have) about ESPNU... There is a lot of crap on ESPN and ESPN2 and ESPNews that I don't see the need for ESPNU... and I like sports.

IMHO we are being fed a line of total BS from big business. The cost to produce and run all these channels is the same no matter how you package them.

Not true. Ever hear of quantity discounts? If you buy 10 of something, often times you get a better price than if you went to the same store and bought just 1 over the course of 10 different visits.

One reason why the channels are 50 cents or $1 each when you divide out your bill is because it averages out... the $5 channels become cheaper because of the 50 cent channels and the shopping channels that pay to be carried on Dish...

If you truly only wanted one channel... I suspect you wouldn't be able to get it for just $5.

I would prefer to pay for what I watch and others would prefer that I help pay for what they watch. This is not fair and no matter how many times you say it telling people who watch 6 channels that it is somehow in their best interest to make them pay for another 20 channels does not make any sense at all.

Basic is about $40 per month give or take.

If every channel had a fixed price why can't I just pay $1 per channel per month?

Because some channels would need more than that to survive... How about this, what if a la carte was introduced, and it turned out that the 5 channels you wanted to watch would not be available because not enough subscribers wanted to pay for them?

If I wanted to pay $5 a month for one channel (that's all I watched) then why won't they take my money?

You can't really believe that Dish would actually make a profit by only making $5 a month from you? It might cost them $1 just to mail you a bill/statement every month, then they have to pay someone to process that payment and pay for the channel, and they have to make a profit too.

Reverse things... Let's say you make $15 per hour... That's pretty good pay for a 40 hour work-week... but what if your employer realized that you are only working a few hours a day, and the other times you are just "on-call" waiting for work to be assigned... Would you be ok just being paid 3 hours a day at the same wages? Could you make a living that way?

Why do I have to order a small or a large size fries at McDonalds? What if I just want one fry... A large order costs $1.50 and has about 50 fries in it... that's 3 cents per fry... so why can't I just buy 5 fries and pay 15 cents?

[jrb531]

The cost to produce all these channels is "fixed" - how this cost is spread out is the discussion here.

No matter who pays what it costs the same for them to produce and distribute the channels.

"Volume discounts" have nothing to do with the end costs. Sure the producers may be able to pool resources together if they have multiple channels to lower the overall costs to produce those channels but this only means that they "can" charge less.

So now we have maybe 100 channels that cost xxx dollars for all of them. How these channels are paid for and by whom is the discussion.

You are correct that is "everyone" is forced to pay for all 100 channels then the "per person - per channel" cost will be the lowest but if you do not want all the channels? If you only wanted 10 channels then you are telling me I would either pay the same or more because I would lose this "huge" volume discount?

Sorry.... I don't buy it. While I agree that I might have to pay more per channel - perhaps alot more, in the end my bill would be less. So I lose the other 90 channels.... so what if I don't watch them.

What would happen is that those people who wanted "all" the channels would have to pay more because the channels would not be subsidised by "forcing" people who do not watch the other channels into paying for them.

I fully understand the concept and example you present but fries are not channels and the reason consumables can become so cheap at volumn is that the number of manpower hours used to produce them is at a minimum. Pay TV involves a ton of people, expensive equipment and such and....

1 fry + 1 fry can = 1.1 costs
1 pay TV + 1 pay TV cannot = 1.1 costs... "maybe" 1.5 costs

But as I said before... this has nothing to do with how "cheap" you can get individual pay TV down to... it's all about paying for it.

Example: (numbers just an example)

100 channels cost 1,000,000 to produce per month:

of these channels:

10 cost 250,000 per month ($25,000 each) - Package A
50 cost 500,000 per month ($10,000 each) - Package B
40 cost 250,000 per month ($06,250 each) - Package C

20,000 people will each pay $50 per month ($1,000,000 / 20,000) for "ALL" channels

or

10,000 people will pay $75 per month for "ALL" channels
10,000 people will pay $25 per month for "just" Package C

You see this has nothing to do with the cost of Pay TV but rather who pays for what. If all I want are the cheap channels I may only get a third of the channels but my bill would be cut in half.

If you want "all" the channels then your bill would go up substantially as you would be paying your fair share and not forcing others to help keep the channels "you" want down in price.

Sucks if you need a zillion channels but nice if you are living on a fixed income, don't want or need a zillion channels or cannot afford the ever rising costs of pay tv.

but one thing would result..... costs would be FAIR!

-JB

[James Long]

The cost to produce all these channels is "fixed" - how this cost is spread out is the discussion here.But the cost to produce each and every channel is not the same. Lifetime buying the rights to movies and producing an occasional 'original' is not the same as ESPN paying multimillion dollar contracts just for the RIGHTS to produce a live sporting event. Then ESPN has to pay for satellite space for the backhauls and much more. ESPN is going to pass that expense on.

Volume discounts do play ... ESPN needs a certain amount of fees from carriers to cover their expenses. If they need 30 million from E* they are going to get it whether they are charging $3 per AT60 customer or $6 for each chosen customer. SPORTS DO NOT GET ANY CHEAPER TO PRODUCE JUST BECAUSE NO ONE IS WATCHING. So E* is seeing the volume discount ... instead of paying $6 or more for each person who chooses to subscribe to ESPN they pay $3 - and they make their entire package stronger by including a popular set of networks.

Volume discounts work the same way with Lifetime. Say Lifetime needs $200k from E* to survive each month. Put those channels in a package and E* pays 2c per sub and is done. But put Lifetime at a la carte and you will find a lot less people picking up the channel ... perhaps Lifetime would have to charge 10c per customer to get their $200k. After a while we have inflated ALL of the channel prices and that gets passed on to the consumer.

What makes it fair to say ESPN can't be a basic channel while requiring Lifetime be a basic channel? Are we discriminating based on content? ESPN is a more popular channel - should they be blocked from packages BECAUSE people want them? Silly isn't it.

JL

[jrb531]

Did you read my above example? I listed three typical "types" of channels each costing more. Sure this is a "very" basic example but I know some channels cost more than others. If you "package" the channels into groups that make sense instead of doing it to "force" people to subscribing to more than they want then I would support this.

The way they do it now is wrong wrong wrong. They are set up to make people pay for what they do not want which may be great for big business but sucks to be us :)

As far as making ESPN break off from basic programming.... Why not? Once you charge more than 2 or 3 times the "average" cost of basic you are no longer basic in my eyes just as HBO is not basic.

ESPN may want to keep being called basic as that benifits them but they are no more basic programming (with multiple channels, expensive programming and now HD channel) than a company wanting to call a pickup truck a sportscar.

Call it what you want but basic it's not!

What's the real objection of people liking ESPN paying for it together or separate? Surely you are not advocating keeping EPSN in the basic package for no other reason to keep the cost down to those who want it?

How about helping me pay for my HBO? I know "you" don't want it but so what.... if it helps me out I don't care about anyone else :)

-JB

[jrb531]

What makes it fair to say ESPN can't be a basic channel while requiring Lifetime be a basic channel? Are we discriminating based on content? ESPN is a more popular channel - should they be blocked from packages BECAUSE people want them? Silly isn't it.

JL

My proposal was to make "any" channel that costs 2-3 times the "average" basic channel cost be split off from the basic package. This allows "some" flexability in pricing but makes it fair for all channels.

So go ahead and price yourself out of basic.... it matters not the content but rather cost. If you get forced out of the basic package you did it to yourself. Pay channels will have to decide if they can stand on their own - out of the basic package - offering a high price service - or keep costs within reason (2-3 times the "average" basic channel cost is reasonable in my eyes) and remain basic.

Fair?

-JB

[Stewart Vernon]

My proposal was to make "any" channel that costs 2-3 times the "average" basic channel cost be split off from the basic package. This allows "some" flexability in pricing but makes it fair for all channels.

So go ahead and price yourself out of basic.... it matters not the content but rather cost. If you get forced out of the basic package you did it to yourself. Pay channels will have to decide if they can stand on their own - out of the basic package - offering a high price service - or keep costs within reason (2-3 times the "average" basic channel cost is reasonable in my eyes) and remain basic.

Fair?

-JB

The problem with what you suggest... if the more expensive channels were all separated from the cheaper ones.... then Dish would not make enough revenue off the cheap ones to pay their bills for them... and they would either raise the prices on those channels or drop them.

A VERY good example is happening right now.

Voom had a basic rate of $40 per month... when Voom goes black this month because it couldn't get enough subscribers willing to pay that rate... Dish is going to add their channels to an existing $9.95 package of HD channels.

So... because Dish is making money on other channels across the board, they can offer something for $9.95 that Voom had to ask 4 times that much. Customers didn't pay, Voom went bye bye, and Dish is going to offer the same thing cheaper.

[jrb531]

If less people subscribe then Dish can lower the price as far as what it costs them to provide those channels.

Example: (prices are not real)

Dish Package with ESPN costs $50 per month with $20 per month profit for Dish
Dish Pakage without ESPN costs $45 per month with $20 per month profit for Dish

Dish still makes the same profit but refunds $5 that it would cost to pay for ESPN.

ESPN is "very" expensive - esp with the new HD channel.

While $5 does not seem like alot of $$$ it is a ton of money if you never watch ESPN.

What is more important in the future is that ESPN is far far more likely to raise prices due to the high cost of covering sports over another basic channel showing old movies :)

Split that baby off now! LOL

-JB

[James Long]

It isn't going to happen. Period. As long as a channel remains popular and a 'must have' for a system they can dictate terms. It doesn't matter how long and verbose you get - the power is with the programmers. If ESPN goes to E* and says 'carry our channel as basic to all subs or don't carry it at all' they know that E* will have to carry the channel because ESPN is such a popular offering. And with channels now purchased by E* in groups where it is more than ESPN that is lost if E* took a hardline.

Fair? Who cares - it is the nature of the business and all of our ranting pro and con is not going to change it.

JL

[jrb531]

It isn't going to happen. Period. As long as a channel remains popular and a 'must have' for a system they can dictate terms. It doesn't matter how long and verbose you get - the power is with the programmers. If ESPN goes to E* and says 'carry our channel as basic to all subs or don't carry it at all' they know that E* will have to carry the channel because ESPN is such a popular offering. And with channels now purchased by E* in groups where it is more than ESPN that is lost if E* took a hardline.

Fair? Who cares - it is the nature of the business and all of our ranting pro and con is not going to change it.

JL

Fair? I care and it's only those who suck it up and take it instead of fighting back that get walked over.

How do you think things get changed? Hell yeah ranting and negative pub can get things changed.

Having the government get involved to break up anti-competative practices is one way to go (or the threat to step in often works)

If this is not anti-competative then I don't know what is.

Being able to pick cable-dish is not competition as long as the same programmers provide the pay tv channels to both.

-JB

[James Long]

Rant at Echostar. Yell at congress if you want government interference.
But go back and read what you quoted. As long as the content is popular enough to be a 'must have' Echostar is in no position to say no ... regardless of the demands.

JL

[jrb531]

Rant at Echostar. Yell at congress if you want government interference.
But go back and read what you quoted. As long as the content is popular enough to be a 'must have' Echostar is in no position to say no ... regardless of the demands.

JL

If congress mandates that pay tv companies have to offer ala-cart to foster competition then guess what? Dish or Cable will have to do it.

There are all sorts of anti-monopolistic laws on the books. Heck even the merger was blocked as it was considered anti-competative.

As long as the program providers can "force" packages on the pay tv companies then there is zero competition.

Remember that Dish (true or not) has proclaimed publically that they would love to exclude certain channels as being too costly but they are "forced" to either take all or none of the package.

This seems to anti-competative that it begs.... screams... shouts for the government to step in. The fact that it was being discussed (ala-cart) awhile ago and then dropped gives me a funny feeling that someone was payed off.

Got to love the lobbyists :)

-JB

[srrobinson2]

I hate to say it, but this reponse is exactly why Charlie keeps talking about "compelling content"...currently you don't find the current HD offerings compelling, so why should he add something new to the mix that you also won't find compelling? (The "you" isn't just you, jrb531, it's everyone saying the same thing here.)

Isn't anyone here an NCAA Football fan? There are 12 weeks of compelling content starting in 14 days.

ESPN2 in HD NOW!!!!!

[Darkman]

chaddux, hehe :D

[LASooner]

I'm a huge college football fan, but ESPNHD doesn't even show 50% of their programming in HD yet, so why add another "HD" channel that side boxes everything? Until they broadcast 70 to 80% of their games in HD why bother? I already get ESPN2 SD. Ok so Sportscenter is in HD, do i really need to see Stewart Scott's Acne?

[hokieengineer]

Ahhhhhhh the joys of bringing back old threads....

If you check the ESPN2-HD schedule, you'll notice there is quite a bit of HD.. MLB and NCAA football. Those of us obsessed over these sports are dying to get this channel.. I hear comcast is in negotiations ;)

[Stewart Vernon]

I am a sports fan as well.. but I don't understand why ESPN needs ESPNU or ESPN2HD, when ESPN and ESPN2 both are running movies and shows of their own making (like Tilt for instance)... or are showing Poker tournaments in SD... I have only seen a couple of times where something was on ESPNHD and ESPN2HD at the same time in HD.

Most of the time both channels appear to be running SD with the sidebars... so for the life of me I cannot figure out why they think they need another HD channel to not show HD on. Or why they need ESPNU when they are showing Poker and Competitive Eating (when did eating become a sport).

[srrobinson2]

I'm a huge college football fan, but ESPNHD doesn't even show 50% of their programming in HD yet, so why add another "HD" channel that side boxes everything? Until they broadcast 70 to 80% of their games in HD why bother? I already get ESPN2 SD. Ok so Sportscenter is in HD, do i really need to see Stewart Scott's Acne?

Check out their HD schedule and remember that football season is not even here yet. http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tvlistings/espnhd/index

They are broadcasting: NFL pre-season games, ML Baseball games, ML Soccer, US Open Tennis and NHRA racing. As for their NCAA football broadcasts--all of the games I watched on ESPN (not ESPN2 or the ESPN PPV package) were in HD last year. That one channel is the only reason I subscribed to Dish's HD pack.

[lionsrule]

Since I started this thread 9 months ago, I'll add alittle.....

Bottom line is that I, as well as millions of others, am a huge sports fan (college football,NFL,baseball, etc....). As others have pointed out, ESPN2HD is slated to have at least one college game/week in HD......I WANT THAT PROGRAMMING!

I WILL get it, even if it means switching to Direct when/if they carry it first.

End of story!

[lakebum431]

I agree with lionsrule. Sure, not all of the programing is in HD but there is some and I would like the option to watch it. I don't think that I will switch providers over it, but it sure would be nice for NCAA football.

[Rick_R]

Well 100% of the sports events I watch on ESPN are HD. That is, the events I am interested in are always HD. I have looked at the ESPN2 schedule for the next few months and 90% of what I will watch is in HD. I sure hope Dish puts it up soon. (Actually everything on ESPN2 I want to watch in the next few months is in HD except the USC vs Hawaii game but I guess there are no HD trucks in Hawaii.)

Rick R