1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Would Dish Network Really Consider Dropping ESPN?

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by LazhilUT, Sep 5, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Sep 6, 2013 #21 of 209
    ehilbert1

    ehilbert1 Godfather

    312
    10
    Jan 22, 2007
    I would love to not pay for all the channels I don't watch too. I understand not wanting to pay for ESPN if you don't watch it. The truth is we all subsudize each others channels. That will not change any time soon. If it pisses you off that much.... cut the cord. It's only TV.
     
    2 people like this.
  2. Sep 6, 2013 #22 of 209
    gov

    gov Legend

    1,101
    50
    Jan 11, 2013
    Granted, that's true for the various packages, but not really for HBO, Starz, etc.

    Outfit running ESPN might want to look at bumping up # of channels to 8 to 10 (imagine the size of their archive!) and re-thinking their business plan as a premium tier service.

    If half the subscribers were willing to pay triple for the ESPN package, they would be making MORE money.

    If 1/10 the # of current subscribers were willing to pay 1/2 for the package, maybe ESPN management needs to contemplate how popular they really are.
     
  3. Sep 6, 2013 #23 of 209
    ehilbert1

    ehilbert1 Godfather

    312
    10
    Jan 22, 2007
    If you think about it those channels are really only super popular when it's football season. They do get pretty good ratings for college basketball but their bread and butter is college football. I'm willing to pay a little more so people that don't want it can get rid of it. The only thing I ask is let me do that for the 50 to 60 channels that I don't watch. Yes I know those 50 to 60 channels are probably still cheaper combined then the ESPN's. The again it might be about even.
     
  4. Sep 6, 2013 #24 of 209
    bnewt

    bnewt Godfather

    394
    5
    Oct 2, 2003
    maybe a drop in monthly price for 6 months or so & then they would raise the dvr fees again

    been waiting a long time for ESPNU in hd along with ABC family. almost dropped dish over the AMC dispute, but loosing ESPN would push me to Direct or maybe even the local cable folks
     
    1 person likes this.
  5. Sep 6, 2013 #25 of 209
    Gloria_Chavez

    Gloria_Chavez Godfather

    499
    17
    Aug 11, 2008
    This is where we're headed. And ESPN is the party most responsible. From a comment I posted earlier...

    ------------------------------
    Let's do a back-of-the envelope exercise.

    CBS wants 2 dollars a month. Let's say that TimeWarner caves, and by Year 4 (2016), CBS is getting 2 dollars a month. That would mean that NBC (Sunday Night Football), ABC and Fox will certainly also get 2 dollars a month. Then you have Univision, whose demographics should result in 2.50 a month, but which will settle for 2 dollars. Telemundo will be happy with 1.50 a month.

    So, in 2016, you have 6 broadcast networks taking in 11.50 a month in retransmission fees. Over 12 months, * today's 100M PayTv subs, you get 13.8B a year, from PayTv subscribers to broadcast networks.

    Today (2012 numbers), PayTv subs pay "just" 2B (of 43B in total in content fees) to broadcast networks.

    That 2B will, within 4 years, increase to 13.8B.

    From paying broadcast networks 1.67 a month in 2012, to 11.50 a month by 2016.

    Do you think this is viable?
    ------------------------------

    What's going to happen? Annual price hikes of 8%+. And most of you will continue to pay. Not because your wages will have increased (real median wages have decreased about 10% during President Obama's presidency), but because you'll spend less on food or other budget items.
     
  6. Sep 6, 2013 #26 of 209
    ehilbert1

    ehilbert1 Godfather

    312
    10
    Jan 22, 2007
    If it gets to exspensive I'll just drop it. Right now my wife and I can afford it. I don't mind paying for the convience our two hoppers bring. Again I will ask........ why get pissed off and let it ruin your day? It's TV!!! Why some of you let it get to you so much is beyond me. Go out and enjoy life some. Get a girlfriend or boyfriend. Go have a beer and enjoy life, Trust me it's too short and can be over in an instant.
     
  7. Sep 6, 2013 #27 of 209
    TBoneit

    TBoneit Hall Of Fame

    2,294
    7
    Jul 27, 2006
    And CBS was probably Sure that Time Warner could not afford to be without CBS for very Long.

    ESPN (Disney that is, after Walt Disney) is probably thinking the same thing.

    Start Sarcasm mode
    I'm sure it will work out at least as good as the YES channel in NYC has done with Dishnetwork. Oh the total horror of no YES channel on Dish. It doesn't seem to be bothering Charley does it.
    End Sarcasm mode

    Is it possible that Sports is becoming a Niche market? You could turn on your local station any weekend and find plenty of sports, Once upon a time, that is.
     
  8. Sep 6, 2013 #28 of 209
    gov

    gov Legend

    1,101
    50
    Jan 11, 2013
    I am assuming the ratio pf prices in bulk sat and cable sales is similar in the residential world, so I'll throw this out:

    100 bed nursing home, nice lineup of around 30 or so D* popular channels (GSN, FNC, Disc,Sci, AMC, LMN, RFD, Food, A&E, Cooking, Spike, Big10, etc.) but no ESPN package, was around $4-5/bed some years ago. At that time, adding the ESPN set run it up to over $7/bed.

    Management did not spring for the ESPN set, and there were some long faces, but there have been less than 5 residents pop for their own satellite account to get them.

    {disclaimer: demographically, the facility is skewed towards older widows, so take that for what it is}
     
  9. Sep 6, 2013 #29 of 209
    sigma1914

    sigma1914 Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    14,582
    369
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    CBS was right... Magically it's returned right before the NFL starts and the Fall lineup.
     
  10. Sep 6, 2013 #30 of 209
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,575
    374
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Yep... that's what I was going to post. mostly summer hiatus during the CBS/Time Warner feud... coincidentally (NOT) that they agree before this Sunday's NFL lineup!

    As I looked at the calendar, Dish has a week or less of a window to take ESPN off the air if they wish... but honestly... I don't think that is going to happen. The severe lack of chatter from either Dish or ESPN/Disney thus far tells me that they may have even already agreed, at least in principle, to a new contract. Otherwise I would expect to have already seen the crawls on ESPN.

    The cricket-chirping, tumbleweed-blowing silence seems to be a positive indicator that Dish and ESPN will be fine.
     
  11. Sep 7, 2013 #31 of 209
    Grandude

    Grandude RichardParker II

    938
    12
    Oct 21, 2004
    Monday night football should never have been moved to cable/satellite only. A disgrace to a national Monday night tradition.
     
  12. Sep 7, 2013 #32 of 209
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,309
    914
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    The move of Monday Night Football was a sign of the times. Now we're further down the road of sports being on subscription channels with only a sampling on free broadcast television. Broadcast television does all they can to charge a fee. Including moving their games to subscription channels.
     
  13. Sep 7, 2013 #33 of 209
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,259
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    The players, coaches, agents, owners and their associated lawyers and agents all need to have their shiny new toys and cars and boats and planes, ya' know.

    And the suckers, er, athletic supporters just keep feeding them coins at ever increasing rates. It will continue until the public wakes up and says enough is enough. No more. That could start by supporting efforts to keep fees down by taking programming off the air during these disputes.
     
  14. Sep 7, 2013 #34 of 209
    phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    14,943
    294
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    The economics of "premium" entertainment can be analyzed in the cost recovery system for the "big" stars.

    A $10+ million payment to a movie star for an appearance in a movie is recovered from voluntary theater ticket sales to fans, then from dvd and on-demand video voluntary sales, then from a premium channel like HBO from voluntary subscribers, and finally, years later, from ad supported cable/broadcast airings.

    A $10+ million salary to an NFL star is recovered from voluntary stadium ticket sales to sports fans and simultaneously from taxing the huddled masses charging almost all American TV viewers for ESPN and from ad supported cable/broadcast airings, then from sports packages from voluntary subscribers.

    Yes, I recognize that we all pay general fees for cable and broadcast channels, but my guess is that ad revenue supports airing live sports like NBC Sunday night football and old movies, not our fees.

    But you don't have to share the cost for my seeing expensive stars in HBO shows and movies.

    And I know that Charlie shares my view on this one, but like me is trapped by a system that creates a truth, justice and The American Way natural right for all Americans to receive a tax subsidy to watch expensive NFL stars beating their brains out.

    As noted by the Wall Street Cheat Sheet:

    If Ergen dropped the Disney package of channels tomorrow with a clear statement that he will not allow it back without putting ESPN into the AT120+ and above tiers and the Disney channels in the AT200 and above tiers, I'd pay for a second full service connection in my house to help out. And I don't need my local ABC O&O.
     
  15. Sep 7, 2013 #35 of 209
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,259
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    Kind of ironic coming from Mr MultiMillionaire Chuckie and his ever increasing DVR fees.
     
  16. Sep 7, 2013 #36 of 209
    sigma1914

    sigma1914 Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    14,582
    369
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    You keep feeding people in the television and movie industry. Does that make you a sucker, too?
     
  17. Sep 7, 2013 #37 of 209
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,575
    374
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Your subscription to satellite and cable TV is voluntary too... Anyone who thinks they pay too much for TV, should consider cutting back or cancelling the pay TV service.

    Sure I wish some things cost less... but things cost what they cost... and luxury items like pay TV are things that IF they cost too much, you can cut back on them.
     
    1 person likes this.
  18. Sep 7, 2013 #38 of 209
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,309
    914
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Non-DVR receivers remain available. At least DVR fees are an a la carte option ... if you don't want to pay you don't have to. Just cancel the service.
     
  19. Sep 8, 2013 #39 of 209
    sregener

    sregener Godfather

    630
    26
    Apr 17, 2012
    It would be a serious change for Dish. Didn't they carry BTN? And PAC12? And how many other sports channels have they added over the previous few years? Dropping ESPN only makes sense if they plan to drop all of the other "dedicated" sports channels as well. You aren't going to get a serious college football fan to subscribe to your service without ESPN, no matter how many other sports channels you carry. And if you have to give up on seeing 3/4 tennis majors (4/4 in the near future), what good does the Tennis Channel do you?

    I'm not saying Dish couldn't change direction and become a sports-free provider. And they could probably charge a boatload less for everything else. But it would not be a small change.
     
  20. Sep 8, 2013 #40 of 209
    phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    14,943
    294
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    What I'm suggesting would not in any way be a change of direction. For instance (emphasis added):

    As indicated in the news release, we AT120 subscribers do not have to pay for the Pac-12 games. For $10 a month I can add the "+" to get the AT120+ package. A charge of $10 a month for sports seems reasonable. And a charge of $15 for it with ESPN seems even more reasonable if it means that a household on a budget, without paying for the "plus" or the ESPN $5, can get most popular channels and choose to use the $15 for HBO or set it aside for the kids college fund or retirement. As I see it, that $5 is a tax going to overpaid NFL players or, from another point of view, being used to provide a "sports stamps" program akin to food stamps for sports addicts.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page