1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Charlie says no to YES

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by tsmacro, Aug 6, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Aug 6, 2005 #1 of 40
    tsmacro

    tsmacro Hall Of Fame

    2,376
    58
    Apr 28, 2005
    East...
    Ok this isn't news we all know that "tightwad Charlie" won't pony up the dough to George "I'll charge more than anyone else and not only will you pay for it but you'll like it" Steinbrenner. With these two coming from such opposite ends of the spectrum you'd think there's never any chance that YES will ever land on Dish. And to be honest i'm only using YES as an example here probably because it's the most extreme, it could be any channel that Dish doesn't carry. Since it doesn't seem likely to be any agreement on price in a case like this why not do it this way: Dish carries YES but as an a la carte channel? This way those who really want this channel could get it and pay George's price for it and the rest of Dish's customers wouldn't be footing the bill of higher subscription costs so that George can get all those extra bucks to make sure he can pay his team at least double or more than any other. This could also work for other channels who want "in". Say you want Dish to carry your channel, well make an agreement that says you'll be willing to start as an a la carte channel and once your subscription rate hits a certain level you get included in the top 180, if you get even more you get to move up to the top 120 and so forth. I know it's a crazy idea, but hey sometimes those work best!
     
  2. Aug 6, 2005 #2 of 40
    tampa8

    tampa8 Godfather/Supporter

    2,010
    33
    Mar 30, 2002
    Well, do a search here or at the other forum an you will see this has been discussed over and over again.

    Charlie DOES want to offer it as a standalone. YES won't allow it. That in a nutshell is the problem. If you search further, YES knows that if you are not forced to pay for it, and it is a stand alone - they will not get enough subscriptions because of the price they are asking. If Dish includes it, they will/might have to raise the price to that viewing area. Dish does not want to - nor should they - start getting into different pricing for each viewing region, certainly not based on the inclusion of one channel.
     
  3. Aug 6, 2005 #3 of 40
    Darkwing Duck

    Darkwing Duck AllStar

    57
    0
    Sep 2, 2004
    Also if they raise the price for that region then you'll have people who will be paying more to get YES when they really don't want it.
     
  4. Aug 6, 2005 #4 of 40
    DVDDAD

    DVDDAD Legend/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    256
    0
    Dec 21, 2002
    Charlie has offered free bandwidth to broadcast YES on Dish and would collect whatever fee they wanted for ala carte and send 100% to YES, without taking a penny out for E*'s own expenses. YES has not agreed to these terms, although they seem very reasonable to most of us here. YES wants to have YES included in a package that would raise rates to many people that don't care about YES or the YANKEES. Not very reasonable if you ask me. It seems to me that YES is the unreasonable party in these negotiations.
     
  5. Aug 6, 2005 #5 of 40
    Mark Holtz

    Mark Holtz Day Sleeper DBSTalk Club

    10,549
    92
    Mar 23, 2002
    Sacramento, CA
    If there is a long, sore issue with me, it's the $ports programming packages where the per-subscriber fees are much higher ($2 and up) than any other channel. Notice how E$PN is on AT60? Disney insisted that it be placed there (or else) whether or not I watch it. (I don't watch E$PN). I would like to jettison the $ports channels, but I can't. YE$ wants at least $2 per subscriber.

    Oh well, I also hope that professional sports implodes on itself.
     
  6. Aug 7, 2005 #6 of 40
    lvkewlkid

    lvkewlkid AllStar

    52
    0
    Jul 3, 2005
    lol, I agree with Mark. I hate sports and I wish they could take out those channels and use it for something useful, hmm, like my wishlist. But, some people do like sports.
     
  7. Aug 7, 2005 #7 of 40
    CoriBright

    CoriBright Legend/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    750
    0
    May 30, 2002
    They're never going to add UPN Las Vegas, it's not a Class A station. I'm near McCarran and can't even receive it OTA. I went with the SuperStation option. At least I now get a UPN even if it's not local.
     
  8. Aug 7, 2005 #8 of 40
    dishjoe

    dishjoe Cool Member

    26
    0
    Feb 28, 2005
    hmmm...Direct TV had no problem getting YES...and I didn’t see them raise there prices for one channel....hmm I wonder why they were able to get YES but poor ole charlie can't? isn’t YES asking for the same deal they got with direct TV... :confused: Are they asking for more from Dish net? :confused:

    I just don't get it...what’s the freaking hold up... :confused:
     
  9. Aug 7, 2005 #9 of 40
    lvkewlkid

    lvkewlkid AllStar

    52
    0
    Jul 3, 2005
    Quote: They're never going to add UPN Las Vegas, it's not a Class A station. I'm near McCarran and can't even receive it OTA. I went with the SuperStation option. At least I now get a UPN even if it's not local.

    Reply: Thanks for the explanation!
     
  10. rnbmusicfan

    rnbmusicfan Legend

    154
    0
    Jul 19, 2005
    I don't think Dish has a great argument for being able to get CCSN-Philly. They believe it is must-have local sports programming for Philadelphia, and Comcast and TW are able to be big cable bullies with market clout.

    Yet, DISH is refusing in carrying MASN in D.C. and YES in NY, where these channels are available. And these sports networks, which have exclusive carriage of local pro sports teams, is equally must-have for a customer that CCSN-Philly would be for a Philly area customer.

    The free bandwidth to broadcast YES on Dish, where YES would collect whatever fee they wanted for ala carte and send 100% to YES is also weak proposition. All RSNs should be subject to that standard if so, where it is alacarte, not just singling out YES to such condition. And gov't regulations would have to dictate that, because the free market won't. Well, DirecTV is carrying those sports networks in D.C. and NYC, giving another provider other than cable, but Comcast argues that DirecTV has NFL Sunday Ticket exclusive so it's acceptable for CCSN-Philly to remain cable exclusive. Apples and oranges, as the local team's RSN and broadcast networks are must have networks, IMO, where ST Ticket is out of market seasonal programming, and NFL and DirecTV aren't co-owned.

    2 teamed markets are different because there will be more than 1 RSN claiming the area, yet each RSN charges the standard price of over $2/mo. Given that the NY Mets and NY Yankees claim the entire NY state and over double the coverage size of another team like the Brewers, then the licensing fee should be half the average rate, to keep a fairness in the cable/sat subscription revenues the teams make.
     
  11. tsmacro

    tsmacro Hall Of Fame

    2,376
    58
    Apr 28, 2005
    East...

    The difference is that Charlie actually wants Dish to make a profit. Apparantly it doesn't matter to Rupert Murdoch that Direct ever makes a profit, since it never has. He seems content to subsidize Direct with the rest of his media empire. Since Charlie doesn't have an international media conglomerate backing him he actually tries to negotiate deals that keep Dish profitable and also keeps rates lower. When someone like Steinbrenner comes along and feels he should be able to charge more than anyone else and everyone will pay his price because it is the frickin' Yankees afterall (and i'm actually a fan of the team) there's going to be some head-butting going on as Charlie never just rolls over and just pays whatever bill is handed to him w/out some negotiation.
     
  12. garypen

    garypen Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    3,410
    0
    Feb 1, 2004
    Murdoch wants to make money with D* like he does with any other of his businesses. (After all, he is a Republican. Money is the only thing as important as Jesus to them, maybe more so.) Plus, Comcast, Cablevision, and Time-Warner manage to carry YES, and still make money.

    There is a ton of speculation here about what Steinbrenner wants from Dish, and what Charlie has offered. Unless they were in the room, or were listening to the phone calls, they have no idea what transpired.

    However, logic dictates that Steinbrenner offered the same deal to Dish that they have with DirecTV, Comcast, Cablevision, TWC, etc, and Charlie declined. What's good enough for everybody else, is simply not good enough for him.
     
  13. Mark Holtz

    Mark Holtz Day Sleeper DBSTalk Club

    10,549
    92
    Mar 23, 2002
    Sacramento, CA
    If memory serves me correctly, the contract with YE$ was negotiated with DirecTV before Murdoch had a controlling interest in the company. And, last quarter, DirecTV actually reported a profit, but still high churn numbers due to high-risk subscriber churn.
     
  14. ayalbaram

    ayalbaram Legend

    135
    0
    Aug 4, 2003
    The main problem in the NY market is not YES it is Cablevision people don't get the whole picture as to exactly what is going on here.

    Cablevision owns 2 rsns and we now have a third in YES. Cablevision used to carry Yankees,knicks,rangers (on MSG); mets,islanders,Devils and nets (on fsny(previously sports channel)). When yes launched the Yankees and nets both left the cablevision owned channels, additionally cablevision had NO hockey programming this past year, so they had 2 chan. to carry 1 baseball team and one (sorry excuse for a) basketball team. Additionally next year the mets will be leaving cablevisions station to launch their own network in a co-venture with TWC. Leaving NYC with 4 sports RSNs.

    So whats my point in all this?? Cablevision has zero need to own 2 sports RSNs at this point, yet they keep them both operating and won't lower the rates for other MSO/sat providers in the market. That is why DISH wont add YES (and probably not the mets station either) they are already (over)paying for 2 NYC RSNs and can not justify paying for another one. Cablevisions bottom line just keeps getting stronger as they lose teams and keep charging the same price for their channels, what really needs to be done is Charlie and others need to force Cablevision to lower the rates on FSNY and MSG as they have lost a significant amount of programming.

    If you feel the need to blame someone for this mess feel free to blame the Dolan's not only have they run the knicks and rangers into the ground in a mere 11 years they've also managed to make it difficult for new yorkers to see their sports teams and basically cost NYC the 2012 games!
     
  15. tsmacro

    tsmacro Hall Of Fame

    2,376
    58
    Apr 28, 2005
    East...
    He's a Republican? I thought he was Australian? I guess he could be the "down under" equivelant though. Yep all those cable companies do carry YES and make money, but they also have ways to make money not available to Dish, like high speed internet, so it's not really a fair comparison. Comparing Dish to Direct is closer to comparing apples to apples. So Charlie should just go along w/ what Steinbrenner is shoveling because everyone else did? Well I see all my buddies are jumping off a bridge, might as well join 'em I guess.
     
  16. tsmacro

    tsmacro Hall Of Fame

    2,376
    58
    Apr 28, 2005
    East...

    Wow they really did make money last quarter?! Well good for them, it's about time! Honestly I thought maybe Murdoch's way of getting some value out of Direct was maybe using it for a Tax write off or something.
     
  17. jrbdmb

    jrbdmb Icon

    731
    0
    Sep 5, 2002
    I don't have any direct knowledge of the contracts that Dish signed to carry MSG and FSNY, but if it didn't include a clause to reduce fees in case any major programming losses (i.e. Yankees, Nets, Mets next year), then Charlie is a lot dumber than I thought. I have to think that the fees for MGS / FSNY are a lot lower than they were in the past (though of course neither side will talk about it).
     
  18. jrbdmb

    jrbdmb Icon

    731
    0
    Sep 5, 2002
    YES wants to be treated like every other RSN on Dish - i.e. be included in AT60+ and above. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. They (and the other RSNs) figured out a while ago that they make more money in a base package than being an a-la-carte premium service. Now the rate they want per month may be higher that other RSNs get, but this is the Yankees, and George has gotten his way with every other provider in the area.

    Now, since Charlie knows the true Yankees fans left for cable or DirecTV long ago, YES may never get on Dish. And Steinbrenner is certainly no saint. But I'd say the blame for the YES - Dish fiasco (and the upcoming Dish - Mets fiasco) falls a lot more on Charlie that what you think.
     
  19. garypen

    garypen Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    3,410
    0
    Feb 1, 2004
    Yes.
    He's an American citizen.
    Doesn't Dish also offer internet? (I know they did, at one time, and are planning some new thing.)
    Yes, if that's the de facto standard. I also think Dish should be providing distant net HD, as does DirecTV, another de facto standard for satellite HD.
     
  20. tsmacro

    tsmacro Hall Of Fame

    2,376
    58
    Apr 28, 2005
    East...
    Ok, I could've sworn he was Australian, but maybe that's because he started his media empire there. No Dish doesn't have internet, unless you count the marketing agreement they have with Earthlink. Sure they say they're going to have it, but they've been saying that for at least two years now and it's always going to happen in a year or so. And I agree with that they should provide distant net HD as well! Hopefully when I get an HD tv they will have it!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page