Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by LazhilUT, Sep 5, 2013.
Back in the 80's The Disney Channel was a Premium channel on cable. They should try that again.
ESPN has proved its value over the past 34 years (since 9/7/1979). Whether that value is the asking price they have going in to negotiations or not is a good question for the negotiators. It is one of the few channels that does not have to worry about being arbitrarily dropped. But they should NOT be given a free ride and get renewed at any cost.
DISH is negotiating on our behalf ... I certainly don't want their negotiations to start with "ok, where do we send the check". Sometimes the threat of allowing a contract to expire and taking down a channel needs to be followed by the reality.
Do you really mean that? I think DISH is concerned with how much money they can take from me.
everyone knows this option is available, but to suggest that dish is negotiating for the consumer, is just a farce. They may say that to save face, but the end customer has no idea what dish or any other provider pays to their "vendors". We can only take what we are told in good faith. Dish is in business to make money, but during this worst economic period since the 30's, help out the consumer. But no, they continue to maintain their profit margin while many people struggle to keep their homes after loosing jobs.
Dish is negotiating on Dish's behalf.
We're just the pawns tossing them coins.
Nope. You and others are free NOT to accept what you are told. People who already hate DISH for one reason or another are more likely not to accept what they are told. People who look at the numbers will see the truth.
DISH is not a charity ... they are not responsible for "loose" jobs or lost homes. If the price of their service causes someone to lose their home it is someone with lousy priorities. Pay television is OPTIONAL. One is not required to subscribe.
As far as a profit margin ... do you know how much that is? Compared to DirecTV or other carriers? I suspect even if they made only a penny per customer per month in profit that would be too much for some people - people who expect DISH to be a charity.
And yet people *DEMAND* that DISH carry expensive networks such as ESPN while keeping the prices down. They threaten to leave if a channel is off for a day yet they don't like the rate increase that comes from paying providers. One should be glad they are not the ones making decisions under such constraints! It is so much easier to hurl stones on the Internet.
Truth be told... Dish is negotiating for US and for THEM...
Dish wants to make money... they can best make money by charging more than they spend How can they accomplish a greater margin?
They can raise rates on customers (US)... They can keep cost down for the business (THEM).
So... every channel that they haggle down to a lower price than the channel wants... is more potential money in Dish's pocket either because they get to keep that margin the next time they raise customer rates OR because it drives away less customers the next time they raise rates.
Nobody said Dish wanted to keep channel costs down to be nice to us... just that they want to keep channel costs down for us... keeping those costs down for us ultimately helps Dish be a better company.
I suppose my view is in the minority, but I believe Charlie takes some things personally and there have been hints in that regard about Disney after the lawsuit loss over HD. Charlie's not an idiot. If the deal offered by the Disney corporate suits is reasonable, Charlie isn't going to reject it. But he tested the "world will end" theory if he lost the Disney HD. Guess what - not even a noticeable blip in subscribers. I know there is posturing in this from the Wall Street Cheat Sheet:
But in the past those who disregard Charlie's views thinking they are dealing with people like the suits at Comcast who aren't personally invested in the outcome - those who think it's just business - have had to learn the hard way. Dish is negotiating for Charlie, not for Dish the corporation or for you and me. In the past, except for the occasional personal preference like the Tennis Channel, Charlie's opinions come closer to mine than those of any overpaid corporate suit in the business. That's why I've never seriously considered any other provider since I started using Echostar C-band equipment in 1988.
The first major carrier that drops ESPN could end up becoming a trailblazer in the battle against the rising costs of carrying sports networks-----or end up committing economic suicide.
Let's say that ESPN/DISNEY agree to sell their channels al a carte to DISH. So for let's say $25 a month (because of less subs taking the package), you get ESPN/DISNEY and the other ABC owned channels. Your base package goes down $10 a month. Is that a good deal?
So for all these channels included in a base package with Directv you would pay $10-$15 less per month. What happens?
It isn't going to happen... to be blunt, we might as well be talking about "what if my grandmother grew wings"... it really is in that kind of fantasy-land.
Right, so the only choice is to negotiate a fair price and carry them as is or drop them.
I still say the most sensible thing is to separate them. Include all of the family/entertainment channels in one of the lower packages and make the sports channels a premium package.
Might not make sense to the stuffed shirts, but it would to those of us who pay them.
I'd like to see a la carte with my taxes. It's insane that I have to pay for the wastewater treatment plant in town because I have my own septic system. And I homeschool, so I shouldn't have to pay the school tax. This "bundling" of government services only makes sense to the stuffed shirts...
We can rage against the machine all day if we want. Bundling is how cable and satellite have arranged their services, believing that by doing so, they create the best overall value for their customers. I like fringe channels like BBC America and the Tennis Channel. If not for bundling, I doubt I could afford what those channels would cost and they would probably go belly-up for lack of paying customers. Just like few people could afford a la carte property taxes, and the overall services provided to residents would drop precipitously.
At the end of the day, you do a value judgement when it comes to what package of channels you purchase. Either a package is worth what you're paying for it, or it isn't. We all get channels we don't watch.
If that were to happen. Dish would lose enough subs that they would need to increase their lower packages to cover current expenses. And I'm not talking retrans fees.
Dish wins ABC Auto-Hop lawsuit. The ESPN/DISNEY fees just went up.
You would think if all of this was heading towards not working out we would've heard some more posturing and blustering from both sides by now. Usually when a deadline gets close and the two sides are far apart in their offers you start hearing how the other guy isn't playing fair and is trying to cheat them, blah, blah, blah. It's been awfully quiet along those lines so far, maybe that's a good sign? Hope I didn't just jinx it!
100% agree with this. Besides one blogger, we have heard ZERO from Disney -or- Dish --> no scrolls, no warnings, nothing. Says to me this is not going to be an issue. If I were a betting man, I would say this is worked out.
If anything Dish may be using Auto-Hop to deflate Disney/ABC's push for higher prices - Dish uses Auto-Hop as a bargaining chip to trade for lower carriage fees for all ABC affiliates, even though the Network has no control over affiliate negotiations with Dish, there certainly is some influence to be asserted by the network.
Dish can also promise not to expand Auto-Hop to cover the ESPN family of channels - in exchange for lesser fees, or conversely, if we have to pay you more for ESPN, we will initiate Auto-Hop on the ESPN family of channels.
If the networks really don't like Auto-Hop that much, they must be willing to sacrifice something to not have it used on their channels.
You make it seem that DISH has the advantage here. They do Not.