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

Dish Goes to Bat for MLB EI Subs


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
64 replies to this topic

#1 OFFLINE   Hound

Hound

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 891 posts
Joined: Mar 20, 2005

Posted 27 March 2007 - 07:27 PM

Carl Vogel testified today at Kerry's hearing and states that Dish
will match Directv's offer, if Dish is given a pro rata
ownership in the MLB Channel. I assume Directv is getting ownership
as well. Pro rata must mean based on the number of MLB EI subs.
Vogel says that MLB told Dish that MLB cannot do that without
getting Directv to agree to it. An equity stake in the MLB channel
seems to be the stumbling block.

http://commerce.sena...Witness_ID=6561

Vogel said that Dish is willing to launch the MLB channel to over
10 million of its subs. Vogel also said that Dish has over 55,000 MLB EI subs.

This is good news for Dish subs who are baseball fans. I am very
impressed. Dish seems to be serious about keeping MLB EI.

MLB EI is a better move for Dish than Voom was. Dish
invested a lot more money in Voom and the $20 HD fee is a result of the
Voom investment. The $20 HD fee has made Dish the most expensive
HD provider in my area, central New Jersey. With Verizon in NJ, subs
now have a choice of four HD providers. The 622 is a very good product, but
my guess is like the president of Tivo recently said about the new $799 Tivo, Dish is not participating in the recent HD boom among middle America because of the $20 fee. Not revealing HD subs with the 2006 results is a tell tale sign.

I have been a Dish HD sub for about three years. But I kept digital cable because
it provided me YES HD, SNY HD, INHD, PBS HD, and NY local HD channels. Dish gives me Phila local HD channels. Then last week, I had Verizon installed, which
gave me all Phila and NY HD locals, 14 HD local channels plus Comcast Sportsnet Philadelphia HD and YES HD. SNY HD is rumored to be on the way. Verizon does
not have a $20 HD fee. You get all HD and SD channels for $43 a month. Total
of 32 HD channels. So I immediately canceled digital cable. Have not given digital
cable a second thought. I was going to cancel Dish as well, but I have a commitment to August and it would cost me $240 to cancel. So Dish is now
my secondary system. I downgraded to 100 plus HD from AEP plus HD. I have two 622s on two TVs. I have Verizon on six TVs.

Point I am trying to make is would I keep Dish as a secondary system just for
Voom? Answer No. However, I have friends that have Directv as a secondary
system for NFL Sunday Ticket and they also have MLB EI and HD. The reason
Directv has 270,000 MLB EI subs and Dish has only 55,000 is a spillover from NFL Sunday Ticket.

If Dish does retain MLB EI, I will continue with Dish. Also, I think HD RSNs are
coming in 2007. With HD RSNs, Dish can move ahead of Directv, because Directv is only going to provide 10 HD MLB EI games a week in 2007. Dish will be able to provide more.

MLB EI, HD RSNs and Voom will keep me with Dish. However, this still does not
solve Dish's problem that HD at $20 is overpriced for middle america.

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

#2 OFFLINE   heisman

heisman

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 895 posts
Joined: Feb 11, 2007

Posted 27 March 2007 - 08:06 PM

Obviously it depends on your area, because E* is way cheaper than Comcast in my area. You say that you are paying $43 for service with Fios. I would kill for that price. I can't get Comcast for less than $75 if I want any HD and 1 DVR. With E* I pay $56 for the same thing, not to mention only $36 for the first 10 months.

#3 OFFLINE   Hound

Hound

    Icon

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 891 posts
Joined: Mar 20, 2005

Posted 27 March 2007 - 09:15 PM

Obviously it depends on your area, because E* is way cheaper than Comcast in my area. You say that you are paying $43 for service with Fios. I would kill for that price. I can't get Comcast for less than $75 if I want any HD and 1 DVR. With E* I pay $56 for the same thing, not to mention only $36 for the first 10 months.


You cannot pay $56 for the same thing. HD for $56 with Dish does not include
locals or regional sports channels. Dish has a lot of teasers, but when you
add everything in, it is expensive. The cheapest Dish HD with one HD receiver, locals and regional sports channels is $66. Comcast in my area with one HD
receiver, seven HD locals and five HD regional sports channels (CSN Philadelphia,
SNY HD, MSG HD, FSNY HD, YES HD) INHD, ESPN HD, ESPN2HD, Universal HD,
Discovery HD, TNT HD, Golf/Versus HD, NBATV HD, and MTV HD is only
$65. Cablevision is only $54 dollars with four HD RSNs (Comcast Sportsnet Philadelphia is carried in SD only on Cablevision) and a few less HD channels.
I have worked it out. Dish is the most expensive HD provider in my area.
With Dish you have to go to top 250 to get Golf and Versus in SD. Dish Top 250
with HD and one HD receiver = $79 a month.

I am not knocking Dish. Just telling the truth about pricing. I impressed that they made the offer to MLB. It looks like a very good offer. Much better than In Demand's offer. To provide MLB Channel to over 10,000,000 subs means 100 or 100 Plus. Probably 100 Plus. I do not see how MLB can turn that down. Dish should hold out for the equity stake in MLB Channel. The deal with Directv should be pro rata in everything including the equity stake. MLB will have to cave in on that and twist Directv's arm. In Demand's offer was trying to be cute. Putting MLB Channel on 15,000,000 cable subs out of maybe 50 to 65 million subs. What MLB wants from In Demand is that MLB Channel must go in what cable calls expanded basic. Dish made a legitimate offer by placing it on 100 Plus.

#4 OFFLINE   heisman

heisman

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 895 posts
Joined: Feb 11, 2007

Posted 27 March 2007 - 09:49 PM

You cannot pay $56 for the same thing. HD for $56 with Dish does not include
locals or regional sports channels. Dish has a lot of teasers, but when you
add everything in, it is expensive. The cheapest Dish HD with one HD receiver, locals and regional sports channels is $66....Just telling the truth about pricing.


Sorry, but once again that is "YOUR" truth, not mine. Comcast does not even offer all the locals in my area and their garbage Motorola DVR does not have OTA. So, actually, I get more local channels in SD and HD for free with a $5 antenna that I have shoved in a closet with E*, than I payed for with Comcast. I have never watched a Bulls, Blackhawks, Cubs, or Sox game in my life, so an RSN is just a waste of a channel for me. To be honest, I would rather watch the grass grow than sit around for 3 hours to watch baseball, hockey, or pro basketball, which is all my local RSN shows. I love that I have an option to not pay for something that I don't want with E*.

To be honest, I get alot more with E*'s $56 than with Comcast's $75. Comcast only had 6 non-local, non-premium HD channels for that price, while E* has about 25 non-local, non-premium HD channels. Also, the 622 is a great STB IMO, while the Motorola DVR that Comcast uses is possiby the worst electronic ever invented. So, in my view, I'm getting 10x more for $20 less, not to mention $40 less for almost a year.

#5 OFFLINE   Hound

Hound

    Icon

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 891 posts
Joined: Mar 20, 2005

Posted 28 March 2007 - 06:00 AM

Sorry, but once again that is "YOUR" truth, not mine. Comcast does not even offer all the locals in my area and their garbage Motorola DVR does not have OTA. So, actually, I get more local channels in SD and HD for free with a $5 antenna that I have shoved in a closet with E*, than I payed for with Comcast. I have never watched a Bulls, Blackhawks, Cubs, or Sox game in my life, so an RSN is just a waste of a channel for me. To be honest, I would rather watch the grass grow than sit around for 3 hours to watch baseball, hockey, or pro basketball, which is all my local RSN shows. I love that I have an option to not pay for something that I don't want with E*.

To be honest, I get alot more with E*'s $56 than with Comcast's $75. Comcast only had 6 non-local, non-premium HD channels for that price, while E* has about 25 non-local, non-premium HD channels. Also, the 622 is a great STB IMO, while the Motorola DVR that Comcast uses is possiby the worst electronic ever invented. So, in my view, I'm getting 10x more for $20 less, not to mention $40 less for almost a year.


My truth is mainstream middle America. When Vogel says that Dish would put
MLB Channel on over 10 million Dish Subs, he is talking about 100 Plus. So that
is over 77% of Dish Subs have 100 plus or higher. I understand your point that
if you do not get RSNs or locals with 100, it is only $56 for HD with one HD set top box. However, more than 77% of Dish Subs have locals and RSNs. Dish HD at $66for mainstream middle America in Central NJ is more than Directv, Comcast, Cablevision and Verizon.

#6 OFFLINE   rbaggio00

rbaggio00

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 12 posts
Joined: Mar 22, 2007

Posted 28 March 2007 - 06:24 AM

Its about time that dish would be in the mix for something, but its not over yet and i will believe it when i see it

#7 OFFLINE   RAD

RAD

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 15,903 posts
  • LocationDripping Springs, TX
Joined: Aug 05, 2002

Posted 28 March 2007 - 07:31 AM

I like this line in http://www.themonito...te=article.html

"The Declaration of Independence doesn’t read, “Life, liberty and the pursuit of a really cool baseball package on TV."

See post My Setup for configuration info.


#8 OFFLINE   DCSholtis

DCSholtis

    Up The Irons!

  • Registered
  • 5,723 posts
Joined: Aug 07, 2002

Posted 28 March 2007 - 09:22 AM

My truth is mainstream middle America. When Vogel says that Dish would put
MLB Channel on over 10 million Dish Subs, he is talking about 100 Plus. So that
is over 77% of Dish Subs have 100 plus or higher. I understand your point that
if you do not get RSNs or locals with 100, it is only $56 for HD with one HD set top box. However, more than 77% of Dish Subs have locals and RSNs. Dish HD at $66for mainstream middle America in Central NJ is more than Directv, Comcast, Cablevision and Verizon.


Actually its a 20% ownership of the new Baseball Network that D* has, not Pro Rata.
Dan Sholtis
"The Raiders will be back. I have unshakable confidence, the will to win, and I just know that the fire that burns brightest in this building is the will to win. And we will win. We will win."---Al Davis. Rest In Peace, Al

#9 OFFLINE   tomcrown1

tomcrown1

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,576 posts
Joined: Jan 16, 2006

Posted 28 March 2007 - 10:00 AM

I like this line in http://www.themonito...te=article.html

"The Declaration of Independence doesn’t read, “Life, liberty and the pursuit of a really cool baseball package on TV."


"Baseball is taking a lot of risks with this deal. This so-called all-American sport, already reeling from accusations of steroid use, risks alienating its loyal fan base. Cable TV subscribers, who could be left out in the cold, might turn on the sport.

But the truth here is baseball has every right to strike this deal. It also has the right to anger its fans. It even has the right to run baseball right into the ground. We can’t find anywhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that would justify the Senate dictating what Major League Baseball can do with its own sport. It’s a business. DirecTV is a business. Cable TV is a business. "


this statement is so true this deal can hurt both Direct TV and major league baseball. It is their right to go under.
Welcome to Dish the new AT&T

:) life is to to to short so be???

#10 OFFLINE   harsh

harsh

    Beware the Attack Basset

  • Registered
  • 18,251 posts
  • LocationSalem, OR
Joined: Jun 14, 2003

Posted 28 March 2007 - 10:05 AM

"Baseball is taking a lot of risks with this deal. This so-called all-American sport, already reeling from accusations of steroid use, risks alienating its loyal fan base. Cable TV subscribers, who could be left out in the cold, might turn on the sport.

If the cable companies could "shirt-tail" on the Dish deal, it could be good for everyone. The DirecTV offer was token and highly insulting.

#11 OFFLINE   Geronimo

Geronimo

    Native American Potentate

  • Gold Members
  • 8,295 posts
Joined: Mar 23, 2002

Posted 28 March 2007 - 10:13 AM

Actually its a 20% ownership of the new Baseball Network that D* has, not Pro Rata.


What DISH is saying is taht they would wanta share of ownership that is proportional to what DirecTV owns (using EI subs asa measure.)

There is no such thing as pro rata ownership. It is simply a way of measuring the appropraite ownership share.
I never cared for all the signatures that insult posters with other points of view.

#12 OFFLINE   Geronimo

Geronimo

    Native American Potentate

  • Gold Members
  • 8,295 posts
Joined: Mar 23, 2002

Posted 28 March 2007 - 10:15 AM

"Baseball is taking a lot of risks with this deal. This so-called all-American sport, already reeling from accusations of steroid use, risks alienating its loyal fan base. Cable TV subscribers, who could be left out in the cold, might turn on the sport.

But the truth here is baseball has every right to strike this deal. It also has the right to anger its fans. It even has the right to run baseball right into the ground. We can’t find anywhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that would justify the Senate dictating what Major League Baseball can do with its own sport. It’s a business. DirecTV is a business. Cable TV is a business. "


this statement is so true this deal can hurt both Direct TV and major league baseball. It is their right to go under.




Of course they have the right. but I don't think that anyone is caliming that they do not. What si being discussed is whether it isa good idea.
I never cared for all the signatures that insult posters with other points of view.

#13 OFFLINE   Geronimo

Geronimo

    Native American Potentate

  • Gold Members
  • 8,295 posts
Joined: Mar 23, 2002

Posted 28 March 2007 - 08:05 PM

If the cable companies could "shirt-tail" on the Dish deal, it could be good for everyone. The DirecTV offer was token and highly insulting.


What "dish Deal"?
I never cared for all the signatures that insult posters with other points of view.

#14 OFFLINE   salemtubes

salemtubes

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 12 posts
Joined: Dec 20, 2006

Posted 29 March 2007 - 01:17 AM

But the truth here is baseball has every right to strike this deal.


Yes, and Congress has every right to pass legislation rescinding MLB's antitrust exemption.

#15 OFFLINE   NKy.Yall

NKy.Yall

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 204 posts
Joined: Apr 08, 2004

Posted 29 March 2007 - 04:25 AM

Its about time that dish would be in the mix for something, but its not over yet and i will believe it when i see it




Dido !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#16 OFFLINE   SMosher

SMosher

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 455 posts
Joined: Jan 16, 2006

Posted 29 March 2007 - 06:31 AM

Well Dish better hurry up! Oh wait, I sub'd to D* and E*.

#17 OFFLINE   Richard King

Richard King

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 21,331 posts
Joined: Mar 25, 2002

Posted 29 March 2007 - 06:43 AM

It ain't gonna happen. Directv would be required to give up some of their ownership (or a percentage thereof), which I am sure they won't do. Either Dish has to modify their terms or kiss baseball good-bye.
The Pump Don't Work 'cause the Vandals Took the Handles.

#18 OFFLINE   SMosher

SMosher

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 455 posts
Joined: Jan 16, 2006

Posted 29 March 2007 - 06:47 AM

It ain't gonna happen. Directv would be required to give up some of their ownership (or a percentage thereof), which I am sure they won't do. Either Dish has to modify their terms or kiss baseball good-bye.


They'll kiss it bye bye. MLB wants the cash. Charlie wont pay it. End of story.

#19 OFFLINE   Hound

Hound

    Icon

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 891 posts
Joined: Mar 20, 2005

Posted 29 March 2007 - 07:48 AM

It ain't gonna happen. Directv would be required to give up some of their ownership (or a percentage thereof), which I am sure they won't do. Either Dish has to modify their terms or kiss baseball good-bye.


IF MLB is giving Directv 20%, maybe MLB would cave in and give Dish 4%. However, MLB and Directv must have a signed deal. That deal may say that
MLB cannot give any ownership in the new channel to anyone else or something
like that. Therefore, MLB probably needs Directv's approval to give Dish a
percentage in the new channel. Now if In Demand comes back and says that cable
will put the MLB Channel on expanded basic (90% of cable subs), but In Demand
also wants a similar percentage of the new channel, that complicates the deal further. Maybe In Demand's percentage works out to 16%. From MLB's perspective
that is a hell of deal, if they can launch MLB Channel on Dish 100 Plus and higher,
and all cable companies' expanded basic (cable companies offering MLB EI). However, at this point, Directv probably has veto power because of the terms of the agreement that was signed. MLB has to twist Directv's arm a little or it will not
happen.

#20 OFFLINE   Aransay

Aransay

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 651 posts
Joined: Jun 19, 2006

Posted 29 March 2007 - 07:55 AM

tiem sinishinghte sball sean sitrtign




spam firewall