ESPN slated to hit $8 mark per testimony in lawsuit

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by phrelin, Feb 26, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    Jan 18, 2007
    In case you didn't know it, the trial involving Dish and ESPN is underway in New York. In this analysis ESPN Set To Pass $7 Sub Fee In 2017:
    I'm personally supporting a "No Disney/ESPN/ABC" package until ESPN and other expensive sports channels become premium packages.
  2. acostapimps

    acostapimps Hall Of Famer

    Nov 5, 2011
    That is way over the top which no provider will bite not even Directv when renegotiating contracts, But you also have to wonder the justification for the major games they show MNF,NCAA,NBA,MLB,some NASCAR,soccer etc.
  3. 1980ws

    1980ws Legend

    Mar 18, 2008
    At one time I felt ESPN and all their channels were a priority for me. Over time, a few smug personalities and the birth of networks NFL, MLB & NHL have dropped the sport mega giant almost off my screen. An occasional CFB game or a particular Sunday Night Baseball are the exceptions. Wouldn't miss them at all now.
  4. gov

    gov Legend

    Jan 11, 2013
    I helped a senior care facility set up an in-house satellite derived cable system. I was privvy to all the pricing numbers for the channels and packages and was stunned when I realized just adding ESPN to the system all but doubled the monthly bill for the service to the facility.

    Management did not want to double a monthly bill (they were just fine about one time upfront costs) and I don't blame them one bit. We declined ESPN, and grabbed 8 other sports channels. There was a little grumbling from the inmates at first, but a football game is a football game, and a race is a race, everyone was fine with the sports offering the facility was willing to pay for.

    For some reason, ESPNU was available seperately, at a very reasonable price, and they do have that channel. If you want ESPN, you have to take it with a block of additional ESPN channels.

    As I recall, the ESPN package was $4.50/mo/inmate, and the entire rest of the package was only around $5.00/mo/inmate.

    Don't know why ESPN can't or won't put some realistic control on their price escalation. As for my home D* account, I never watch it. Don't have time for an entire football game very often. I'll watch a race once in a while on Fox.
  5. sigma1914

    sigma1914 Well-Known Member

    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    It's because they pay high broadcasting rights resulting in a much lower cash flow margin than many other channels.

    When cash flow margin is low or non-existent, the company lacks the cash to expand.
  6. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Knowing the full story is important, though... That says 2017... 4 years from now... and approaching $8 by the end of the decade 2020.

    Who knows what everything else will cost by then. All the channels are raising their rates when they get the chance... so all channels will cost more in the next 7 years than they do now.
  7. tampa8

    tampa8 Godfather/Supporter

    Mar 30, 2002
    That was my first thought too. Not saying ESPN isn't comparatively expensive, but you can't think today's prices in 2017. But if all channels have risen like that there may be no one able to subscribe....
  8. jerrylove56

    jerrylove56 Godfather

    Jun 14, 2008
    North Alabama
    I feel the same. ESPN use to report a lot of good sports stories, now they seem to "make it up" and create drama.
  9. gov

    gov Legend

    Jan 11, 2013
    think I saw this elsewhere, but maybe making the ESPN block a separate package like HBO or Cinemax might be a better plan. Then everyone that wants it can opt in for it, and so many other folks might, for the same money, pickup an additional tier, like HBO that they would rather watch.

    Making everyone take a block of channels that is priced in the range of Starz/Encore, HBO etc. seems a little weird. There is so much cost pressure on the system, looks like this would be an better way of doing it.

    Not wanting to start a big heated discussion, but looking at the $$$$ input to 'sports' from all sources and we might be surprised at the total.

    $5 an account/mo for E*, D*, and every cableco, admissions, bequests to college sports programs, bond issues to build stadiums (stadii?), OTA commercial revenue, business sponsorships, as a nation, there is an enormous amount of $$$ going towards college and pro sports, makes one wonder a bit, don't it?
  10. DoyleS

    DoyleS Icon

    Oct 21, 2002
    El Dorado...
    If they were carrying the olympics or some major event, I would sign up for the month and then drop back after the event. Sports are typically not a daily watch item. If you are hardcore then yes but a large portion of subscribers have it because it is in the basic package. There might be some big surprises in the boardroom at ESPN if they push this too far.
  11. Hunter844

    Hunter844 Legend

    Apr 26, 2007
    This all makes way too much sense...therefore it will never happen.

    In five to seven years I suspect there will be substantial growth in specialized IPTV segments that will probably be substantially less expensive and more like a a-la-carte system that many desire.
  12. satcrazy

    satcrazy Icon

    Mar 15, 2011

    We may never see ala carte, but too many people are tired of being held hostage.
    Give ESPN to those that want it at a price.

    I know I recently posted in another thread Disney's Movie Dept. is being subsidised by the government and the amount is staggering. Apparently they need more.

    No one that I know is getting an increase in their personal income the way these corperations are. The price increases are unsustainable for the average joe.

    It's becoming a house of cards.
  13. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Gold Club DBSTalk Club

    Apr 17, 2003
    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.
  14. saleprice

    saleprice Duplicate User (Account Closed)

    Feb 27, 2013
    While you have the right to call those Seniors inmates, you are a sick twisted person for doing so, they are human beings who are not in prison, even though (if you lowlifes do your research) the courts have sickingly twisted the definition of inmate to now mean ANYONE who lives in a place and shares an entrance with another person.
  15. gov

    gov Legend

    Jan 11, 2013
    I have a close family member working in the field, and that has been a looooooong running joke here.

    I should not have extended that level of familiarity to this forum and you have my apologies.
  16. koralis

    koralis Godfather

    Aug 10, 2005

    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.

    The real question is "Why can the sports teams ask for it?"

    If ESPN didn't have an unlimited amount of revenue (because they can dictate any price they want) then the sport teams would have to keep their own costs in line so they EPSN/Sports could reach a reasonable accommodation.

    But right now, virtually every person in the country is helping to pay for Tom Brady's crazy salary whether they give a damn about football or not. The market is broken.
  17. Wilf

    Wilf Legend

    Oct 15, 2008
    Don't subscribe to packages that have sports channels. That's what I do - but maybe I march to a different drummer.
  18. Paul Secic

    Paul Secic Hall Of Fame

    Dec 16, 2003
    I agree! Too much!
  19. tommiet

    tommiet Godfather

    Dec 28, 2005
    That will be the so called "last straw" for me, if DISH dumps that on me.
  20. VDP07

    VDP07 Godfather

    Feb 22, 2006
    Edit: Tom Brady changed to Peyton Manning. His 2013 base salary, $20 Million.:eek2: Brady is not even in the top 10.

    That said, sports and entertainment stars get paid unreal (and likely unsustainable) ammounts for what they do. When and how the bubble will burst is the question.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

spam firewall