DBSTalk Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

· New Member
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
While I was waiting for AMC to work out their deal with Dish I found a great show on Disney XD called Tron: Uprising. I thought I was a little slow because I couldn't find the channel in HD, but after doing a little research on the Internet I realized that Dish pulled the HD feed on this channel some time ago when it pulled the HD feed for ESPN News.

Has their been any progress on getting these HD feeds up? It would be nice to watch the second season of this show in HD.

Thanks,

Erik
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
21,658 Posts
Hi, and welcome...

FYI, Dish didn't pull the feed. Disney pulled the feed.

You can find more info online... but suffice to say, Dish thought it had a contract to carry these channels in HD... Disney did not... so Disney cut the feed. Disney also sued for back-pay for time that Dish had already been carrying them... and that's where we still sit today.
 

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
54,197 Posts
I can't remember the last time an ABC/Disney channel was taken completely off of DISH ... which would be a public sign that there was a negotiation. Perhaps the renewals have come and gone and both sides are willing to keep the status quo on the four channels.

The four channels are an odd type of dispute ... DISH added the HD feeds without explicit permission. ESPN complained and two years later managed to get the channels pulled from the service via a court battle. That case continues. But carriage of the SD feeds was not an issue.

I cannot imagine there not being some kind of renewal since 2008. That is a long time to go without some contract discussion. The "hope" that the next time the contract renews DISH and ESPN will be forced to settle their differences seems to be a false hope.

Which is good because we really don't need ALL of the ABC/Disney channels for a month while they bicker - but it is bad because with status quo there does not seem to be room for improvement.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
21,658 Posts
This quote from that link seems odd to me:

"Because all subscribers subsidize the sports channels - whether they watch them or not - carriers have been reluctant to offer subscribers a sports-less package, fearing that it would drive up costs for those who want the sports channels to a level where those subscribers would flee because of the high prices."

The odd part, to me, is that this statement is made as if it only applies to the sports channels. It applies to ALL channels in the tiered-packages. Only the a-la-cart channels are not part of the "subsidy" argument.

Acting as if only ESPN is being subsidized "whether you watch it or not" while that is true of literally hundreds of cable channels... that seems misleading to me.

There are lots of non-sports channels that I have never watched that I pay for too. Just seems an odd way to phrase things.
 

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
54,197 Posts
I agree ... the article threw me off. It is good to know the jury trial is starting but the question of how much ESPN gets is an open secret. Those who care enough to follow a court case would already have a fairly good idea what the numbers are. The general public that doesn't know the numbers probably would not follow the case.

And the focus on sports channels going through the roof on price if they were not so widely distributed ignores other channels, popular or not.
 

· Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
15,556 Posts
I think there is a key point to be made - ESPN is a significant cost in all packages. It is as if in order to be able to provide CBS, the carriers had to include Showtime in the basic package level for $8 a month. I don't think people know this.

You're right about nobody following the case therefore no impact, though. The problem is unless someone like Justin Bieber tweets about it, the general public will continue to be unaware.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
21,658 Posts
phrelin said:
I think there is a key point to be made - ESPN is a significant cost in all packages.
True... but some channel would be the most expensive one unless all channels were paid at the same rate.

And... people easily ignore that the older/more expensive/popular channels tend to make it possible for the other channels to get on the air.

Without ESPN and a handful of other high-rating channels, all the other channels wouldn't get enough ratings by themselves to drive people to subscribe.

So... people argue "pull ESPN out and make it an add-on"... but then people who want ESPN will still be "forced" to buy that other qualifying package of channels they don't want to watch in order to buy ESPN...

So, it always seems to me to be a classic case of "What I want is good, what you want is wrong"... people choose to ignore that while they are paying some to ESPN and might not watch it... lots of others are paying for the channels they like, without watching.

IF we went back to a only-pay-for-what-you-watch scenario, people would be rudely awakened to how many channels they like would go away... and how many others would cost more than ESPN!
 

· Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
15,556 Posts
I don't see it that way.

Yes, there's lots of channels out there charging a few dimes a month that have to be part of a package to survive. There's a collective good in that.

Then there's the premium channels like HBO that acquire expensive content of sufficient interest that people will pay a "premium" for it. I don't see the difference between that and expensive sports entertainment. It is a premium entertainment form and should be a premium package.

There will always be movies and shows akin to what HBO offers on broadcast and cable network channels. There will always be sports akin to what ESPN offers on broadcast and cable network channels. IMHO they both should be packaged a premium entertainment.
 

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
54,197 Posts
phrelin said:
The problem is unless someone like Justin Bieber tweets about it, the general public will continue to be unaware.
Yeah ... if Bieber tweeted about it people would wonder if he was back on drugs. Biebs buddy ... you can afford it!

As for the rest of us ... :)
 

· Icon
Joined
·
917 Posts
phrelin said:
I don't see it that way.

Yes, there's lots of channels out there charging a few dimes a month that have to be part of a package to survive. There's a collective good in that.

Then there's the premium channels like HBO that acquire expensive content of sufficient interest that people will pay a "premium" for it. I don't see the difference between that and expensive sports entertainment. It is a premium entertainment form and should be a premium package.

There will always be movies and shows akin to what HBO offers on broadcast and cable network channels. There will always be sports akin to what ESPN offers on broadcast and cable network channels. IMHO they both should be packaged a premium entertainment.
The problem with making ESPN an add-on goes back to the beginning of television. The broadcast networks used live sports to build audience for the new medium. Generations grew up with "free" broadcasts of major sporting events and, thanks to Wide World of Sports, many they had never seen before. Taking away "free" sports is like taking away some basic American right for many.

I don't watch ESPN 24/7 like some people I know, but I watch enough that I would feel pain at its loss. OTOH, with a DISH bill that's going to jump $17 next week, I'm not excited about paying another $7 or $8 for an add-on sports channel or package. I think something has to be done to control the rising cost of sports viewing. But then I could say the same for the rising cost of actually attending the games. As long as the Cubs continue to fill Wrigley Field I know I'm on the losing side of that battle.
 

· Mentor
Joined
·
45 Posts
Here is the latest prediction from tvpredictions.com:


Dish: We'll Keep ESPN, Disney
By Swanni

Washington, D.C. (February 21, 2013) -- Dish executives yesterday said they expect to be able to negotiate a new carriage deal with Disney, including ESPN, despite the fact the two companies are battling each other in two separate lawsuits.

The current contract expires in September of this year. I wonder if we'll have to wait until then for Disney, ESPNEWS, and ABC Family to return in HD?
 

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
54,197 Posts
That is the first I've seen of a contract end date. I wish it had been from a better source.

Contract renewal is a good time for a programmer to make demands and withhold channels if those demands are not met. So ABC/Disney channels in HD or gone completely? Hopefully we at least end up with the status quo.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top