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

#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

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

#62 ONLINE   Curtis0620

Curtis0620

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,436 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
  • 714 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 ONLINE   Curtis0620

Curtis0620

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,436 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
  • 1,261 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
  • 714 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 ONLINE   Curtis0620

Curtis0620

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,436 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
  • 714 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 ONLINE   Curtis0620

Curtis0620

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,436 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 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,214 posts
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
  • 714 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 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,214 posts
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
  • 714 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

#76 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,214 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 06 March 2013 - 09:33 PM

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

Actually we all lose ... our remote control only lets us choose what channels we watch of the ones available. It does not allow us to change what the channels broadcast.

We can show our displeasure at what ESPN has on by watching something else ... but as long as the channel pulls in viewers for their headline shows the filler sports and commentary shows don't have to carry the network.

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

It could be. But many channels do not live up to their names. Remember when MTV played music videos? Now we have four channels of MTV/VH1 and much of the programming is barely related to music. (Married ... With Children is on one of those music channels tonight - the connection to music? The show has a theme song.)

Speedvision went from filling their hours with racing to Speed filling their hours with vehicle related shows. And the future is "yet another ESPN" ... which is probably better than all the "reality" shows. (FS1 will have a heavy NASCAR footprint ... with Sprint Cup races in 2015. But for people who like the reality shows they will have to hope it ends up on Fuel/FS2 or another channel like Velocity. Perhaps "R U Faster than a Redneck" can air on History or H2? History made every day ...)

Hmmm ... perhaps if I put new batteries in my remote it will change the programming as well as the channel. :)

#77 OFFLINE   satcrazy

satcrazy

    Icon

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

Posted 09 March 2013 - 11:33 AM

I get it JL, and I agree with you.

I think the real issue I was trying to put forth was the cost ESPN represents in comparison to other broadcasts.

Again, all about the $.

Perhaps with the new boys on the block, [ F1, F2] they will either step up their game or lose some bargaining power. [ or Ergen will give them what they want:nono2:]

I know you're kidding about the History channel [ R U....] but IMO, That once excellent channel is less than a shadow of it's former self.

As far as the music channels go, the only one worth anything is palladia, imo.

#78 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,214 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 09 March 2013 - 02:45 PM

I know you're kidding about the History channel [ R U....] but IMO, That once excellent channel is less than a shadow of it's former self.

"History" is showing several hours of Larry the Cable Guy today. I wish I could say R U would never show up on History but I can't be sure. :(
Then again, the only thing I watched on History is Ice Road Truckers so perhaps I am part of the problem. :lol:

ESPN has me for NASCAR ... but nothing else. If I could have a 24/7 NASCAR channel that would show the feed from ESPN or ESPN2 when NASCAR is on, the feed from Speed when NASCAR is on, the feed from TBS or TNT when NASCAR is on ... it would get complicated with local network stations when NASCAR was on Fox or ABC broadcast. But when I sit down and say "I want to watch NASCAR" it would be nice not to hunt.

And I'm sure that others feel the same about their favorite sports and teams. A Detroit Tigers fan probably wouldn't mind having a single channel they could tune to that would always be the game ... even if the game was on ESPN or MLB Network instead of their local RSN.

But with ESPN owning some games, MLBN owning some games, FSDetroit owning some games and MLB EI owning anything that has not been sold having such a channel would still require subscribing to all the channels that would be part of the mix. Making people subscribe to THEIR channel is the channel provider's goal - and having some of each type of content on their channel is their best bet.




spam firewall