Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by phrelin, May 11, 2011.
Disney probably lost a little bit of negotiating clout now that Hannah Montana is history.
If it weren't for ESPN, I wouldn't subscribe to either cable or satellite service. I need ESPN, ESPN2, and ESPNU. When I shopped around, Dish had the lowest price of any provider to be able to get all three of those channels. If Dish moved the ESPN channels to a much higher tier or to a premium tier (not going to happen because it would be absolute suicide on Dish Network's part), there would be no reason for me to be with Dish. If they pull the channels as part of the dispute, I will be screaming pretty loudly.
I plugged my nose and ignored the fact that Dish doesn't currently carry ESPNU in HD figuring that would eventually work itself out and it wasn't worth an extra $20 a month for me to get that with either Direct or Comcast. I also have a soon-to-be three-year-old who watches a ton of Disney Channel (meaning I watch more than I would like) and would really like to see that in HD as well. As pointless as the Disney Channel is, watching anything in 16:9 HD is better than watching the same thing in 4:3 SD.
Nobody NEEDS them. You NEED food and water.
If you're talking to an economics professor, even food and water aren't needs.
Clothing and shelter are optional.
That is why I mentioned the new Lemonade thing..Disney will constantly find new things to promote. I think that tweens though may watch less and less television unlike the previous Hannah Montana generation if they are shifting to non-television sources. So, I expect Disney's audience will continue to skew younger.
Interesting enough, Disney is going the Nick route with specific dedicated Junior channel programming focus. I think it is terrible timing because:
A) Nick Jr. is already not carried in most main basic-expanded cable packages from my perspective and Disney Junior is not going to get any better attention.
B) Dish is not going to happily move the old Disney XD to a lower package based on the already frayed relationship.
C) Disney should have just moved the entire network younger rather than trying to segment off -- the tweens are going to be fewer and fewer on tuning into television for their entertainment, they just have to accept that with choices of mobile phones and other types of screens.
I am not sure who is really doing the reality check at these networks sometimes.
Charlie appears to have an opinion on this that he expressed in today's Conference Call:
Or, in many cases, How much will a consumer pay for SOMEONE ELSE to watch sports content?
None of us watch every channel Dish has to offer, so to one extent or another, we are all subsidizing each others viewing.
Whether or not you watch sports...those channels allow Dish to maintain a certain sized customer base. Losing sports customers would decrease the customer base and may not work out good for any of us long term. Not saying Dish should pay anything they are asked....just that they better be real careful with Disney/ESPN. This is not AMC or Lifetime.
I read this awhile back and had to search again, but I think it is pertinent.
If Ergen stands by his statement, it could get interesting.
Ergen's last sentence says it all......IMO.
with that type of corporate welfare, Disney is hardly hurting.
So, if DISH just gave in to ensure no channel outage occured, meaning they just pay whatever Disney asked, and it makes your bill raise, you'll scream.
On the other hand, if DISH fights to keep your rate to same, which results in channel loss (which the channels are pulled by the channel owner, not the provider), then you'll scream.
So.. it sounds like a no win situation in your case?