Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo

ESPN slated to hit $8 mark per testimony in lawsuit


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#21 OFFLINE   tampa8

tampa8

    Godfather/Supporter

  • Registered
  • 1,827 posts
Joined: Mar 30, 2002

Posted 27 February 2013 - 08:47 PM

That will be the so called "last straw" for me, if DISH dumps that on me.


So, you are already planning on dropping dish in 2017. Now that's planning ahead.

...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#22 OFFLINE   tampa8

tampa8

    Godfather/Supporter

  • Registered
  • 1,827 posts
Joined: Mar 30, 2002

Posted 27 February 2013 - 08:49 PM

Just for the fun of it ... assume ESPN has 100 million subscribers.

Today ESPN wants ~$500 million per month for their channel (and a little bit more for the rest of the suite). $5 per sub.
In 2017 ESPN wants ~$800 million per month for their channel --- which can be blamed, in part, on the constantly growing prices they pay for content. $8 per sub.

Now take away their subs by allowing people to opt out of ESPN. Say half of their subscribers say $8 is too much. Then the ~$800 million they need to pay for content is divided between 50 million subscribers. $16 per sub. And if that price scares off more subscribers the ~$800 million needed is shared between less subs. $20 per sub ... $25 per sub ... more?

They are surviving at $5 per sub. And if they back away from the more expensive content in years to come perhaps they will be able to maintain $5 per sub ... while the companies buying the content they give up - CBS, FOX and NBC - build their sports networks and raise their prices to match ABC's ESPN. The money we pay ESPN will just go somewhere else.

TV is going to keep getting more expensive ... but it seems the only way to keep the price of sports down is to have as many people as possible pay for it. Hopefully the non-sports fan get their money's worth and appreciate the availability of ESPN when something "good" is on.


You can simply substitute RSN's in place of ESPN and make the same argument.

#23 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,909 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 27 February 2013 - 11:02 PM

You can simply substitute RSN's in place of ESPN and make the same argument.

It works for any channel. :)
Channels want the eyeballs and the "forced" subscribers. Channels with less leverage may choose to allow themselves to be placed in a higher tier. Some channels may WANT to be in a higher tier because of the prestige of being a higher tier channel. (Starz! went after DISH for giving away their channels for a year when DISH did the 30th anniversary gifts. They want to be a premium package - not basic.)
Getting in a tier that pays the bills is important.

#24 OFFLINE   djlong

djlong

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,211 posts
  • LocationNew Hampshire
Joined: Jul 08, 2002

Posted 28 February 2013 - 05:21 AM

It *is* saying something when an MVP-caliber quarterback takes a pay CUT to make salary cap room for his favorite receiver.

It's another thing entirely in ANY situation when $9M/year is considered a pay cut.

#25 OFFLINE   sregener

sregener

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 600 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2012

Posted 28 February 2013 - 05:40 AM

And why do they pay high broadcast rights? Because the sports teams ask for it and ESPN can't say "No" because they'd be put out of business.


This isn't how it works. ESPN can very easily say no. But they don't for a few basic reasons.

First, if ESPN was truly the only place where these sports could get coverage, ESPN wouldn't have to pay very much for them. After all, if no one else is bidding, the price just won't go up very much. But with all the other sports networks out there, they have to pay what other channels would pay, plus a little more, in order to keep those sports.

Second, ESPN is not in business to lose money. They bid for sports that will make them money. Because of the dual money nature of payTV (getting money from subscribers, and getting money from advertisers), they have two goals to achieve. First, they want to make their programming so essential that customers will howl if they lose the channel. (What?! No Monday Night Football? Get back to the bargaining table, I don't care what it costs!) And second, they have to get programming popular enough to be able to set high rates for commercials.

The issue most people have is with the first half of their revenue stream: the money they charge their subscribers. And by making their channel essential to a large number of viewers, they have a strong bargaining chip for charging more for their channel. Dish knows, as does every other cable and satellite provider, that if you don't have ESPN, you won't get enough subscribers to make a go of it.

In essence, when ESPN goes and bids, they're doing it with our money. Just like DirecTV is taking their customers' money and using it to by exclusivity to NFL Sunday Ticket.

If you want to win the pay TV game against this system, you really have only one choice: stop paying for TV. Get an antenna and accept whatever you can get from it, stream what you can, and live without the rest. If enough people do this, the costs for pay TV and sports will go down. The problem is convincing enough people to do this to actually make anything change, and since I still don't see the cost of satellite as unreasonable, I think it will be a hard sell.

#26 OFFLINE   david_jr

david_jr

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 415 posts
Joined: Dec 10, 2006

Posted 28 February 2013 - 07:41 AM

It *is* saying something when an MVP-caliber quarterback takes a pay CUT to make salary cap room for his favorite receiver.

It's another thing entirely in ANY situation when $9M/year is considered a pay cut.


He did take a cut in pay, but he actually increased the guaranteed money. I guess he is gambling that he could get hurt and lose the bigger contract so instead he agreed to less money, but more guaranteed. Plus it makes him look real good. I suspect he will not be on a corner holding a can any time soon.

#27 OFFLINE   HinterXGames

HinterXGames

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 313 posts
Joined: Dec 20, 2012

Posted 28 February 2013 - 08:25 AM

He did take a cut in pay, but he actually increased the guaranteed money. I guess he is gambling that he could get hurt and lose the bigger contract so instead he agreed to less money, but more guaranteed. Plus it makes him look real good. I suspect he will not be on a corner holding a can any time soon.


It's also not the first time he's restructured his contract to give the Patriots more money. Not to mention, it was quite awhile before Brady actually got the big pay day, compared to other QB's.
--
And whoever said he's not a top 10 QB is nuts
--
As to the ESPN issue. :nono2:

#28 OFFLINE   phrelin

phrelin

    Hall Of Fame

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 13,481 posts
  • LocationNorthern California Redwoods
Joined: Jan 18, 2007

Posted 28 February 2013 - 11:33 AM

Fundamentally, professional sports stars are stars just like movie stars. The big names in both are phenomenally overpaid. Then there are the good supporting "actors" that are well paid, and then there are the bit players that work for scale.

We have the premium movie packages - HBO, Showtime, Starz, Epix - for those who like to see the movie stars in action. We have the sports channels for those who like to see the sports stars in action. But the sports channels tax me - and it is a tax supported by Disney, Fox, and Congress - so those who like to see the sports stars in action don't have to pay for an expensive special premium package.

If something isn't done to stop this, many millions of us who don't watch ESPN will drop satellite and cable because streaming shows from the streaming services like Netflix, HULU+, Amazon, etc., doesn't involve taxing us to subsidize sports fans.

"In a hundred years there'll be a whole new set of people."
"Always poke the bears. They sleep too much for their own good."

"If you're good enough, they'll talk about you." - Tom Harmon
A GEEZER who remembers watching TV in 1951 and was an Echostar customer from 1988 to 2008, now a Dish Network customer.
My AV Setup
My Slingbox Pro HD Experience
My Blog: The Redwood Guardian


#29 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 19,703 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 28 February 2013 - 03:54 PM

If something isn't done to stop this, many millions of us who don't watch ESPN will drop satellite and cable because streaming shows from the streaming services like Netflix, HULU+, Amazon, etc., doesn't involve taxing us to subsidize sports fans.


And then... when enough people do that, the prices will go up at all of those other places too... and you'll be right back where you started, except you'll be paying more for less.

Everybody is subsidizing everybody... that is how we have grown to where we are today. We can debate whether or not subsidizing is desired... but we really can't argue that the result hasn't been more channels for the same or less money over all.

-- Respect the S.H.I.E.L.D.


#30 OFFLINE   DoyleS

DoyleS

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 1,005 posts
Joined: Oct 21, 2002

Posted 28 February 2013 - 05:14 PM

I agree with Phrelin. There is only so much that I will pay for the privilege of having a ton of channels, many of which I don't watch. I am not a big sports fan so other than Olympics and playoffs they don't get my attention. Same is true for Cable News. I watch it during a crisis but never watch it on a daily or even weekly basis. At the same time, the number of different providers of Video content via the Internet has just exploded. Roku now has over 700 different channels. Probably a lot of garbage but also pretty much whatever someone wants and at ala carte pricing. Movie lovers have a lot of choices and even Netflix, AMC, HBO and Showtime are all cranking out quality material. Most networks have their key series online for free as well as OTA. It does require a fast internet connection. Cost per program may be higher in the long run but Total bill could be significantly less.
Receivers= 722K, 722, 211K,
Dishes=Dish1000.2
Sling Adapter

#31 OFFLINE   phrelin

phrelin

    Hall Of Fame

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 13,481 posts
  • LocationNorthern California Redwoods
Joined: Jan 18, 2007

Posted 28 February 2013 - 05:51 PM

I know that there are economic implications when the "carrier tax" isn't available to the networks. After all, HBO costs $15± a month for basically one channel of first run programming. But the model has to change. Here's a very good piece A year without cable: the pros and cons from the Wall Street Journal via Yahoo and I'll quote the beginning and the end:

Dear Cable,

How are you? Can you believe it's been a year since we last saw each other? I remember handing the cable guy my set-top box like it was yesterday.

... I'm learning to forgive you. But you have to change. It's easy, really: Let me pay for just the channels I want—say, $100 a month for my choice of 20 instead of $175 for hundreds. If you do that, you can move your set-top box back to where my Apple TV now sits.

Do I miss you? Sometimes. Will we ever be together again? Perhaps. But not today. And not tomorrow. For now, let's just be friends. I'll still see you at my parents' place over the holidays, OK?

Your pal,

Kevin

Me, of course, I'm the parent the kids who use streaming come to and visit. But I keep the cost under $100 with Dish and I'm hoping they won't allow Disney/ESPN to drive it up over that number or I might be writing "Dear Charlie...."

"In a hundred years there'll be a whole new set of people."
"Always poke the bears. They sleep too much for their own good."

"If you're good enough, they'll talk about you." - Tom Harmon
A GEEZER who remembers watching TV in 1951 and was an Echostar customer from 1988 to 2008, now a Dish Network customer.
My AV Setup
My Slingbox Pro HD Experience
My Blog: The Redwood Guardian


#32 OFFLINE   ts7

ts7

    Mentor

  • Registered
  • 48 posts
Joined: Nov 01, 2011

Posted 28 February 2013 - 05:53 PM

And then... when enough people do that, the prices will go up at all of those other places too... and you'll be right back where you started, except you'll be paying more for less.

Everybody is subsidizing everybody... that is how we have grown to where we are today. We can debate whether or not subsidizing is desired... but we really can't argue that the result hasn't been more channels for the same or less money over all.


Subsidizing is a fact of life for now but how about a reality check. Based on the ESPN numbers posted, nearly 10% of my bill goes to ESPN. Add in the cost of the RSN's and the total is probably around 12%. I NEVER watch any of the sports networks. The games I want to see are almost always televised on the local channels. I'm pretty sure the channels I do watch are not costing anywhere near as much as ESPN.

How about a hybrid subsidy where perhaps ESPN and other significantly higher than average cost networks are subsidized at a lower rate based on the total subscriber base but the programming be placed in an optional premium package to make up the difference? For example everyone pays $2/month to ESPN but to get the programming, those wanting it would need to subscribe to an "ESPN Premium Package" for say $10/month. Something similar could be done with RSN's, local channels, etc - basically passing more of the cost on to those who consume the material and spreading less across the entire subscriber base. This might also help bring some of the outrageous demands from the local stations in check if their viewers had to bear the brunt of the service costs and took it out on the local stations and advertisers.

#33 ONLINE   sigma1914

sigma1914

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,023 posts
  • LocationAllen, TX
Joined: Sep 05, 2006

Posted 28 February 2013 - 06:20 PM

Just for the fun of it ... assume ESPN has 100 million subscribers.

Today ESPN wants ~$500 million per month for their channel (and a little bit more for the rest of the suite). $5 per sub.
In 2017 ESPN wants ~$800 million per month for their channel --- which can be blamed, in part, on the constantly growing prices they pay for content. $8 per sub.

Now take away their subs by allowing people to opt out of ESPN. Say half of their subscribers say $8 is too much. Then the ~$800 million they need to pay for content is divided between 50 million subscribers. $16 per sub. And if that price scares off more subscribers the ~$800 million needed is shared between less subs. $20 per sub ... $25 per sub ... more?

They are surviving at $5 per sub. And if they back away from the more expensive content in years to come perhaps they will be able to maintain $5 per sub ... while the companies buying the content they give up - CBS, FOX and NBC - build their sports networks and raise their prices to match ABC's ESPN. The money we pay ESPN will just go somewhere else.

TV is going to keep getting more expensive ... but it seems the only way to keep the price of sports down is to have as many people as possible pay for it. Hopefully the non-sports fan get their money's worth and appreciate the availability of ESPN when something "good" is on.


This post should be quoted every time another a la carte topic starts. People can't seem to understand this and James is spot on.
If you stop responding to them or put them on ignore, then eventually they'll go away.

#34 OFFLINE   Hunter844

Hunter844

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 119 posts
Joined: Apr 26, 2007

Posted 28 February 2013 - 06:31 PM

I imagine the bulk of that money is because of these huge college conference tv packages, not because Tom Brady needs to build a new house.

As a sports fan I would point out there there are several non-sports worthless (to me) tv channel tiers I'm stuck with in my subscriber plan AT250 that no doubt cost me roughly equal to or more than the ESPN tier. It all comes back to more choices, we want more choices as subscribers and yet we can't get more flexibility because someone decided long ago that it would be bad for business. Dish would dearly love to drop several networks but can't because they are under contract to air those channels many of which are sister channels to more popular networks. The networks want more channels to sell more advertising.
Dish Network 211k with EHD, AT250 with HDforLIFE
Eastern ARC DMA on 1000.4
Panasonic TC-P55GT50
LG 42'' 1080p LCD, Denon IN-COMMAND AVR-2112CI

#35 OFFLINE   VDP07

VDP07

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 484 posts
Joined: Feb 22, 2006

Posted 28 February 2013 - 09:39 PM

It's also not the first time he's restructured his contract to give the Patriots more money. Not to mention, it was quite awhile before Brady actually got the big pay day, compared to other QB's.
--
And whoever said he's not a top 10 QB is nuts
--
As to the ESPN issue. :nono2:


I was refering to Tom Brady's 2013 base salary, which is not even in the top 10. That's not nuts, that's a fact.

#36 OFFLINE   TheSpider

TheSpider

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 25 posts
Joined: Jul 03, 2012

Posted 13 March 2013 - 11:34 AM

sports day are going to be the reason that we none can aford tv day are raising the price so rapidly what manie people will do is drop to welcome or smart just to keep bare minimum or locals if they cant not get them with a leaf or rufftop antana and then turn to netflix or somethign like that it wood be smart for the individal sports network like mlb nhl nfl or nba to start saleing dare channel alone for the people that wont it wo the high bill imho mejames just wish i could get mlb alone




Protected By... spam firewall...And...