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 Ordered to Pay Dish Network $4.86 Million for Breach of Contract


  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

#51 OFFLINE   donalddickerson2005

donalddickerson2005

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 230 posts
Joined: Feb 13, 2012

Posted 05 March 2013 - 09:52 AM

No matter what package you get there will always be channels that you don't want. Personally I'd love to see less qvc type shows but then again there has to be a few people that buy that stuff everyday.
Hr34-700 living room
C31-700 bedroom
H23-600 family room

...Ads Help To Support This Site...

#52 OFFLINE   david_jr

david_jr

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 476 posts
Joined: Dec 10, 2006

Posted 05 March 2013 - 10:09 AM

I think Stewart would win his bet regarding which would last longer, ESPN or FX. It would definitely be ESPN. However I think the larger question is how long would Satellite delivery last without either of those channels and I think the answer would be satellite would last longer without FX than without ESPN. Not that I like their high price because I rarely watch it, but I think they do to a degree command a higher price for a reason - demand. I don't like where my bill is, but cord cutting isn't a real option for a lot of people unless you don't want to watch TV at all (which might not be a bad idea). Without satellite delivery rural areas like mine would have to go without, except for what they can get OTA (the further out, the harder to get especially in difficult terrain areas, like mine) and rural areas also tend to have reduced internet options as well, like mine. The customer choosing between satellite and cable delivery is not in the same situation. Also we have a 5 person family all with different tastes so satellite meets our needs better than streaming here in the boodocks ever would (at least with currently available options).

#53 OFFLINE   phrelin

phrelin

    Hall Of Fame

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 13,714 posts
  • LocationNorthern California Redwoods
Joined: Jan 18, 2007

Posted 05 March 2013 - 01:55 PM

Please don't blame the government ... The free market came up with the current system.

See the Wikipedia explanation of the "must carry" rule in the U.S. Then remember that recent News Corp negotiations included O&O locals in the package along with cable channels, including sports channels.

Remember when Senators and Congressmen got all pushed out of shape over negotiations keeping their constituents and themselves from watching professional sports events.

Like it or not, government is a player in this and historically the NAB and the media companies engage in very expensive lobbying, outspending the signal carriers. And as far as I know, I don't have a lobbyist.

When Dish and Disney renegotiate if there are any ABC O&O's involved, it will be a government, or at the very least, a political issue. And it will be nearly impossible for Dish to refuse price increase demands for ESPN if dropping ABC O&O's were the only alternative as those DMA's represent 25%+ of the viewing audience. Despite their reduction in audience over the past 20 years plus the OTA option, Dish would see some customer reaction if they didn't have ABC in the major markets.

And then Dish has many other issues that somehow seem to end up in Congressional hearings, issues that can't be separated from lobbying.

With that said, I don't "blame" the government. It's just one player. If the multinational media corporations want something from cable and satellite companies, they'll get it in this "market" economy, bickering billionaires and members of Congress notwithstanding.

Without satellite delivery rural areas like mine would have to go without, except for what they can get OTA (the further out, the harder to get especially in difficult terrain areas, like mine) and rural areas also tend to have reduced internet options as well, like mine. The customer choosing between satellite and cable delivery is not in the same situation. Also we have a 5 person family all with different tastes so satellite meets our needs better than streaming here in the boondocks ever would (at least with currently available options).

This is probably the strongest argument for carrier mixed packages. At some point, IMHO Americans should at least pretend we have a commitment to each other to assure some semblance of reasonably affordable access to in-home entertainment, news, culture, etc.

The issue here is to define "affordable." Right at this moment I don't really have a problem with ESPN costs, I'm just grumbling. But we need to make sure those costs don't become outrageous. To do that, we need the discussion to let Disney, the signal carriers, and the politicians know that there is a limit.

"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


#54 ONLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 41,407 posts
  • LocationMichiana
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 05 March 2013 - 05:15 PM

See the Wikipedia explanation of the "must carry" rule in the U.S. Then remember that recent News Corp negotiations included O&O locals in the package along with cable channels, including sports channels.

Must carry is an option placed to protect the small stations. It has nothing to do with the big network O&O stations that are carried under the separate "consent to carry" rules.

I said that the rules came from the industry ... not the users. Sure, you may not have the money to buy a lobbyist for your point of view. You may not even be able to form a grass roots movement to collectively get enough money to influence the process ... but guess who is influencing the process? The industry. Providers and carriers plus their representatives. The industry taking a battle that they are having trouble working out amongst themselves (even with the help of the courts) to Congress where rules can be written.

The leverage the O&O owning companies have over carriers is not because the government forces satellite/cable to carry the broadcast networks ... it is because the market demands that broadcast network channels be carried. Bundling O&Os with cable channels is something the market came up with.

#55 OFFLINE   phrelin

phrelin

    Hall Of Fame

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 13,714 posts
  • LocationNorthern California Redwoods
Joined: Jan 18, 2007

Posted 05 March 2013 - 06:34 PM

The leverage the O&O owning companies have over carriers is not because the government forces satellite/cable to carry the broadcast networks ... it is because the market demands that broadcast network channels be carried. Bundling O&Os with cable channels is something the market came up with.

OK. My impression was that virtually everything I see on TV gets intertwined with government regulation even including the sound level of commercials. But I'm sure I'm confused.

Let's just say I'm glad ABC doesn't have the 2014 Superbowl (owned by the NFL which has no special legislation regarding its market situation). Otherwise we would hear threats from regular citizens from the floor of the Senate Chamber in the U.S. Capitol if Disney tried to include some O&O's as leverage in its effort to "pressure" Dish to pay an arm and a leg for ESPN and Disney channels.

Charlie could drop the whole Disney/ESPN/ABC offering as leverage and not get phone calls from non-governmental U.S. Senators and House of Representatives members who represent the invisible hand of the free market by regulating virtually everything his business does.

Obviously, I see governmental conspiracies everywhere in the TV business. But I'll assert that I may be paranoid but that doesn't mean they are not out to get me. And by "they" my memory keeps remembering headlines like Senators John Kerry and Scott Brown push as DirecTV deal threatens Super Bowl access for 200,000 Boston subscribers.

Of course, that was politics, not government except for the letter to the FCC Chairman.

"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


#56 ONLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 41,407 posts
  • LocationMichiana
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 05 March 2013 - 06:56 PM

People who seek politics find it ... it is probably in your breakfast cereal as well. :)

#57 OFFLINE   phrelin

phrelin

    Hall Of Fame

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 13,714 posts
  • LocationNorthern California Redwoods
Joined: Jan 18, 2007

Posted 05 March 2013 - 07:11 PM

People who seek politics find it ... it is probably in your breakfast cereal as well. :)

That's for sure.:)

"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


#58 OFFLINE   satcrazy

satcrazy

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 876 posts
  • LocationGreat lakes, NW Pa.
Joined: Mar 15, 2011

Posted 06 March 2013 - 10:27 AM

That is still a la carte and it does not get around the issue of the channels needing the money they are currently collecting to stay in business. Cut the number of subscribers and they will have to charge more per subscriber or reduce the content to less expensive programming (infomercials, reality shows, reruns).


My question here is, why does ESPN "need" considerably more than, say, TNT,USA, or FX?

What are they realy producing, like the three above mentioned stations which have some pretty good series?

There are other sports channels that broadcast like ESPN without the high price tag. So, what gives?

#59 OFFLINE   Curtis0620

Curtis0620

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,473 posts
Joined: Apr 22, 2002

Posted 06 March 2013 - 10:40 AM

My question here is, why does ESPN "need" considerably more than, say, TNT,USA, or FX?

What are they realy producing, like the three above mentioned stations which have some pretty good series?

There are other sports channels that broadcast like ESPN without the high price tag. So, what gives?


Rights fees to the various Sports Leagues (NFL, MLB, NBA, SEC, ACC, etc).

It's because they have all of them, not just one or a few..
HR34-700
HR24-200
HR24-200

#60 OFFLINE   satcrazy

satcrazy

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 876 posts
  • LocationGreat lakes, NW Pa.
Joined: Mar 15, 2011

Posted 06 March 2013 - 11:03 AM

Rights fees to the various Sports Leagues (NFL, MLB, NBA, SEC, ACC, etc).

It's because they have all of them, not just one or a few..


O.K.
But why is that relevant if MLB has their own channel, TNT shows NBA, and NFL I think is shown on other channel? [ I don't watch NFL, ever:]
Isn't there a soccer channel?
Now with Fox 1 appearing this summer, how relevant is ESPN?

I just looked at espn's line up and right now there are 4 channels of commentary and the fifth is "off the air".
Sorta like having 4 channels of "The View":lol: [ No, I don't watch that, but it is "commentary"]

#61 OFFLINE   donalddickerson2005

donalddickerson2005

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 230 posts
Joined: Feb 13, 2012

Posted 06 March 2013 - 11:10 AM

O.K.
But why is that relevant if MLB has their own channel, TNT shows NBA, and NFL I think is shown on other channel? [ I don't watch NFL, ever:]
Isn't there a soccer channel?
Now with Fox 1 appearing this summer, how relevant is ESPN?

I just looked at espn's line up and right now there are 4 channels of commentary and the fifth is "off the air".
Sorta like having 4 channels of "The View":lol: [ No, I don't watch that, but it is "commentary"]

Agree. I would love to see ESPN or this new fox 1-2 carry more SPORTS because there is games in every country everyday. Why can't we get games that are in China and Russia or any other middle East country.
Hr34-700 living room
C31-700 bedroom
H23-600 family room

#62 OFFLINE   Curtis0620

Curtis0620

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,473 posts
Joined: Apr 22, 2002

Posted 06 March 2013 - 11:11 AM

My question here is, why does ESPN "need" considerably more than, say, TNT,USA, or FX?

What are they realy producing, like the three above mentioned stations which have some pretty good series?

There are other sports channels that broadcast like ESPN without the high price tag. So, what gives?


O.K.
But why is that relevant if MLB has their own channel, TNT shows NBA, and NFL I think is shown on other channel? [ I don't watch NFL, ever:]
Isn't there a soccer channel?
Now with Fox 1 appearing this summer, how relevant is ESPN?

I just looked at espn's line up and right now there are 4 channels of commentary and the fifth is "off the air".
Sorta like having 4 channels of "The View":lol: [ No, I don't watch that, but it is "commentary"]


Let's say it costs $1 for the rights to each sport.

For NFL:
NFL Channel $1
ESPN $1

For MLB:
MLBNet $1
ESPN $1

For NBA:
NBAtv $1
ESPN $1

For SEC Sports:
ESPN $1

For ACC Sports:
ESPN $1

So far:
NFLN $1
MLBnet $1
NBAtv $1
ESPN $5
HR34-700
HR24-200
HR24-200

#63 OFFLINE   satcrazy

satcrazy

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 876 posts
  • LocationGreat lakes, NW Pa.
Joined: Mar 15, 2011

Posted 06 March 2013 - 12:25 PM

Let's say it costs $1 for the rights to each sport.

For NFL:
NFL Channel $1
ESPN $1

For MLB:
MLBNet $1
ESPN $1

For NBA:
NBAtv $1
ESPN $1

For SEC Sports:
ESPN $1

For ACC Sports:
ESPN $1

So far:
NFLN $1
MLBnet $1
NBAtv $1
ESPN $5


O.K.
Earlier today there was a preseason game on MLBN. Why wouldn't ESPN show that so those that do not get MLBN could watch it?
As dd2005 pointed out, there are other games out there.
Not much bang for your buck watching a bunch of guys sitting around "commenting" on multiple ESPN channels.

#64 OFFLINE   Curtis0620

Curtis0620

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,473 posts
Joined: Apr 22, 2002

Posted 06 March 2013 - 12:32 PM

O.K.
Earlier today there was a preseason game on MLBN. Why wouldn't ESPN show that so those that do not get MLBN could watch it?
As dd2005 pointed out, there are other games out there.
Not much bang for your buck watching a bunch of guys sitting around "commenting" on multiple ESPN channels.


ESPN will be showing College Basketball on all 3 networks tonight, what will MLBN be showing? What is NFLN showing right now?
HR34-700
HR24-200
HR24-200

#65 OFFLINE   LtMunst

LtMunst

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,267 posts
Joined: Aug 24, 2005

Posted 06 March 2013 - 12:37 PM

Now with Fox 1 appearing this summer, how relevant is ESPN?


I'm not an expert on (or even a fan of) most sports, but I enjoy college football. ESPN has an absolute lock on that. Probably 50% or more of the games that matter.
Hopper, Hopper w/Sling, Joey x2

#66 OFFLINE   satcrazy

satcrazy

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 876 posts
  • LocationGreat lakes, NW Pa.
Joined: Mar 15, 2011

Posted 06 March 2013 - 12:55 PM

ESPN will be showing College Basketball on all 3 networks tonight, what will MLBN be showing? What is NFLN showing right now?


Not trying to bash sports fans here, just trying to point out if you're a all around station, why not give the baseball fans a taste? [ I follow "Some" baseball, but I also have MLBN, not everybody does]

All the college basketball fans should be happy today.

As for NFL offerings, I don't follow it.

Oh, MLBN has a game on tonight.

Guess I'm just wondering why not more actual games of a "variety" of sports on multiple ESPN channels.

#67 OFFLINE   Curtis0620

Curtis0620

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,473 posts
Joined: Apr 22, 2002

Posted 06 March 2013 - 01:06 PM

Not trying to bash sports fans here, just trying to point out if you're a all around station, why not give the baseball fans a taste? [ I follow "Some" baseball, but I also have MLBN, not everybody does]

All the college basketball fans should be happy today.

As for NFL offerings, I don't follow it.

Oh, MLBN has a game on tonight.

Guess I'm just wondering why not more actual games of a "variety" of sports on multiple ESPN channels.


What would you say is more valuable programming? College Basketball or Exhibition Baseball?

As for the NFL, you were complaining about all the talk shows on ESPN, that is all that the NFLN has now for months.
HR34-700
HR24-200
HR24-200

#68 OFFLINE   satcrazy

satcrazy

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 876 posts
  • LocationGreat lakes, NW Pa.
Joined: Mar 15, 2011

Posted 06 March 2013 - 01:27 PM

What would you say is more valuable programming? College Basketball or Exhibition Baseball?

As for the NFL, you were complaining about all the talk shows on ESPN, that is all that the NFLN has now for months.


Value depends on what your prefferences are, IMO.
Obviously you enjoy college basketball, and that's your thing.
I on the other hand watch "some" and I quote that because I'm talking like once a week, but it is still my thing over basketball.

As for NFLN having commentary, what else? Football games won't start for awhile. [ I don't follow football]
MLBN also has mostly commentary in the off season.

Thing is, there is no off season for ESPN, is there?

All I'm trying to say is ESPN could give everyone more variety,that's all.

#69 OFFLINE   Curtis0620

Curtis0620

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,473 posts
Joined: Apr 22, 2002

Posted 06 March 2013 - 01:34 PM

Value depends on what your prefferences are, IMO.
Obviously you enjoy college basketball, and that's your thing.
I on the other hand watch "some" and I quote that because I'm talking like once a week, but it is still my thing over basketball.

As for NFLN having commentary, what else? Football games won't start for awhile. [ I don't follow football]
MLBN also has mostly commentary in the off season.

Thing is, there is no off season for ESPN, is there?

All I'm trying to say is ESPN could give everyone more variety,that's all.


They already do offer variety. College Basketball (Men & Women), and NBA are currently on this time of year plus other minor sports.

You just showed why MLBnet and NFLnet are worth less than ESPN. ESPN has quality sports on all year where the others are seasonal only.
HR34-700
HR24-200
HR24-200

#70 ONLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 41,407 posts
  • LocationMichiana
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 06 March 2013 - 05:51 PM

Earlier today there was a preseason game on MLBN. Why wouldn't ESPN show that so those that do not get MLBN could watch it?

ESPN cannot show every game ... they must buy the rights to the games they air. The other games are sold by MLB via other packages. Sometimes MLB intentionally holds back good matchups and put them on MLBN as an exclusive ... if you want to see that game you must subscribe to MLBN. Letting ESPN air everything would make MLBN less valuable.

And it is ALL about making money. The MLB is not a charity ... they sell the rights they own and try to make the most money possible. Perhaps that is evil ... but it is the way it is.

One might as well ask why NBC doesn't air The Walking Dead and the rest of the (few) popular AMC television series. NBC doesn't have the rights ... and AMC wants people to pay for THEIR channel, not see their content on some other channel.

#71 OFFLINE   donalddickerson2005

donalddickerson2005

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 230 posts
Joined: Feb 13, 2012

Posted 06 March 2013 - 06:11 PM

Not trying to bash sports fans here, just trying to point out if you're a all around station, why not give the baseball fans a taste? [ I follow "Some" baseball, but I also have MLBN, not everybody does]

All the college basketball fans should be happy today.

As for NFL offerings, I don't follow it.

Oh, MLBN has a game on tonight.

Guess I'm just wondering why not more actual games of a "variety" of sports on multiple ESPN channels.

I am all for seeing cricket and rugby not to mention curling and any other sport out there. I find it hard to believe that 8 hours out of the day there is no sports on and ESPN has talk shows. I hope fox does do it right and give us sports all day.
Hr34-700 living room
C31-700 bedroom
H23-600 family room

#72 OFFLINE   satcrazy

satcrazy

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 876 posts
  • LocationGreat lakes, NW Pa.
Joined: Mar 15, 2011

Posted 06 March 2013 - 06:52 PM

ESPN cannot show every game ... they must buy the rights to the games they air. The other games are sold by MLB via other packages. Sometimes MLB intentionally holds back good matchups and put them on MLBN as an exclusive ... if you want to see that game you must subscribe to MLBN. Letting ESPN air everything would make MLBN less valuable.

And it is ALL about making money. The MLB is not a charity ... they sell the rights they own and try to make the most money possible. Perhaps that is evil ... but it is the way it is.

One might as well ask why NBC doesn't air The Walking Dead and the rest of the (few) popular AMC television series. NBC doesn't have the rights ... and AMC wants people to pay for THEIR channel, not see their content on some other channel.


Of course they can't show every game, but a pre-season one? Could it be that expensive? [ don't know what games go for, even low level ones] It would stand to reason they [MLB] would hold back on more desireable match ups, they need to compete and make their money.
I realize it's all about the $.
O.K.
forget about MLB.
What about lesser options like what dd2005 mentioned? He gets what I'm saying I think.
Instead of hours of commentary on multiple channels [ couldn't they dedicate one channel for this?], how about a variety of sports? Or is that too costly as well? The variety would at least make the high cost of ESPN easier to swallow [ for some]
I imagine those 4 or 5 guys ESPN pays for their comments don't come cheap either.

I rather enjoyed Jai Alai when I lived in Fla. I sure wouldn't mind watching that.

Edited by satcrazy, 06 March 2013 - 07:00 PM.


#73 ONLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 41,407 posts
  • LocationMichiana
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:36 PM

Everything costs money ... some things cost less. While you as a viewer may set a goal for ESPN to fill every waking (and some unwaking) moment with fresh sports their goal is to make the aforementioned money. ESPN does not need to spend money filling every moment with sports to make money.

All they have to do is have enough content to draw an audience. During peak times you may get your wish and have sports on every channel ... but that isn't going to happen during off peak times.

#74 OFFLINE   satcrazy

satcrazy

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 876 posts
  • LocationGreat lakes, NW Pa.
Joined: Mar 15, 2011

Posted 06 March 2013 - 08:12 PM

Everything costs money ... some things cost less. While you as a viewer may set a goal for ESPN to fill every waking (and some unwaking) moment with fresh sports their goal is to make the aforementioned money. ESPN does not need to spend money filling every moment with sports to make money.

All they have to do is have enough content to draw an audience. During peak times you may get your wish and have sports on every channel ... but that isn't going to happen during off peak times.


O.K. JL, you win,:lol:

I guess since espn is "entertainment and sports programming network" the channels filled without the sports part is suppose to be entertainment.

Long live the almighty buck.

#75 OFFLINE   donalddickerson2005

donalddickerson2005

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 230 posts
Joined: Feb 13, 2012

Posted 06 March 2013 - 08:29 PM

O.K. JL, you win,:lol:

I guess since espn is "entertainment and sports programming network" the channels filled without the sports part is suppose to be entertainment.

Long live the almighty buck.

And to your point I hope fox does a better job of putting on sports. Not to get off topic but back in the day CNN and MSNBC where your go to TV channels now fox out does them everyday. Apples to oranges but I hope fox can do a better job than ESPN.
Hr34-700 living room
C31-700 bedroom
H23-600 family room




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