[tommiet]

Ok, I’ve been looking all night and cannot find my kids high school basketball game on dish. What’s the problem?

A little sarcasm here. Yeah as you can tell, I’m not a sports fan (gasp!) I gave up watching “Charlie Chats” and any other live Dish show because it’s a guarantee that multiple callers will ask the same old question about their local sports team on Dish.

It gets a little deeper… I know you can’t believe all you read on the net, but last year I read that ESPN cost Dish over $8.00 per customer. It seems to me its time to move ESPN to a “premium” option. Yes, it would probably raise the cost of ESPN per user, but I don’t ask any one to help me pay for HD or HBO. :nono2:

I’ve told the wife and kids we may need to move before the sports Gestapo find us. :lol:


Go easy on me.......

 

[Stewart Vernon]

I'm not sure what the point here was... is there a question?

There is lots of misinformation on the Internet.

 

[tommiet]

It cost a lot of money for ESPN and other sports channels. And like a drug addict, sports fans can never get enough. When the cost in minimal, who cares. But when it cost almost as much as HBO, its time to make a change.

The point is that most sports fans will not be happy until their team is on DISH. I say add it! But make them PAY FOR IT! This stuff is not free and someone needs to pay for it, right? I just don't want it to be me. :nono:

And the constant complaining about "when will my team be on Dish" and "please add "sports this and sports that."

Give it a break and turn off the TV and go outside with the kids and PLAY sports.

I'm not sure what the point here was... is there a question?

There is lots of misinformation on the Internet.

 

[Cold Irons]

Wow - my advice: a deep breath & a glass of red wine.

I'll take ESPN over HBO anytime.....

 

[gopherscot]

Tommie ... ESPN is the most popular cable channel. No way will it ever be off a main package. Stop crying and enjoy all the channels available!

 

[boba]

Espn and ABC are part of the Disney Family of programming. Imagine the contracting clout this business has. ESPN is by contract part of every basic programming service and trying to eliminate it would affect the contracts of many other desirable services. Sorry but unless the FCC or Congress forces the option of choosing individual channels we are stuck with packages wether we like the contents or not. A la carte would be very nice even if we had to pay more from each service. Of course we can select favorite channels so the undesirable services don't show but we still pay for them.

 

[Greg Bimson]

And it isn't $8 for ESPN. It is slightly over $3 for the entire ESPN suite (minus HD and ESPNU).

 

[psnarula]

the folks who don't watch espn and who don't want to subsidize it for the rest of us are welcome to get the family package.

 

[tommiet]

I found my price quote from the senate hearings last spring about Ala cart pricing. But a Google search found that it can cost as much as $10.00 per month.

Quote from COMCAST ----------------

Cox says ESPN currently charges it $2.61 a month per subscriber. The cable company says the ESPN charge is more than its combined cost for the seven top ad-supported cable networks, channels such as Nickelodeon, TNT, Lifetime, and Fox News.

A recent General Accounting Office study said sports networks raised their prices an average of 59 percent over the past three years, more than twice as much as nonsports networks.

--------------- End quote

Why do they charge more.... Because they can! Just think what would happen if Charlie pulled a "were not going to pay it" and dropped ESPN.

This is just my 2 cents... I use my "FAV's" and trash ESPN with the home shopping stuff. If I was a sports fan, I would be with the "other guys."

And it isn't $8 for ESPN. It is slightly over $3 for the entire ESPN suite (minus HD and ESPNU).

 

[Stewart Vernon]

You are quoting misinformation.

ESPN is not $8 on Dish network... and we really have no idea what it would be if it were A la carte, though it might be that high I suppose.

Main point is, that it is not nearly that high now.

Also... what if I don't want to pay for the channels you are watching?

This sort of seems like a rambling rant, but maybe that is just me?

 

[JimFunk]

Most people get the cable/sat for ESPN or sports. So, we are actually subsidizing your programming which we don't watch. We should be the one whining about the high cost of the other channels besides ESPN/sports.

 

[Stewart Vernon]

Most people get the cable/sat for ESPN or sports. So, we are actually subsidizing your programming which we don't watch. We should be the one whining about the high cost of the other channels besides ESPN/sports.

Yep... that's the problem with the whole argument of this type... because there's no way all of us are watching all of the channels we are paying for... there is simply not that much time in the day even if we did nothing but watch TV all day long!

So no matter what, we are always subscribed to things we are not watching at any given time... unless everything went PPV and we only paid for actual time tuned to that channel... and I don't think anyone wants that, because it would be expensive per minute!

 

[WebTraveler]

Tommie ... ESPN is the most popular cable channel. No way will it ever be off a main package. Stop crying and enjoy all the channels available!

I tend to agree with him. ESPN is the reason why cable rights are so high. I do find that I rarely watch them anyway. Seems that I spend more time watching FSN and the other cable channels for sports. I like college football, and ESPN really doesn't do me any service whatsoever. They don't show the Pac-10 at all. Sure I catch a few games here and there on ESPN, but overall they are responsible for jacking up cable TV prices. Its ridiculous.

 

[Stewart Vernon]

I tend to agree with him. ESPN is the reason why cable rights are so high. I do find that I rarely watch them anyway. Seems that I spend more time watching FSN and the other cable channels for sports. I like college football, and ESPN really doesn't do me any service whatsoever. They don't show the Pac-10 at all. Sure I catch a few games here and there on ESPN, but overall they are responsible for jacking up cable TV prices. Its ridiculous.

Ummm, no again. ESPN is but one small bit of the price of your monthly service. I could name a dozen channels that I don't watch that cost more than ESPN does when added together... which gets us back to the circular argument.

ESPN is not the evil responsible for high TV rates. I don't even see where anyone can draw that conclusion now matter how you slice things.

 

[JohnL]

I tend to agree with him. ESPN is the reason why cable rights are so high. I do find that I rarely watch them anyway. Seems that I spend more time watching FSN and the other cable channels for sports. I like college football, and ESPN really doesn't do me any service whatsoever. They don't show the Pac-10 at all. Sure I catch a few games here and there on ESPN, but overall they are responsible for jacking up cable TV prices. Its ridiculous.

Web,

<RANT ON>

You complain about the high cost of ESPN and then talk about FSN which is another sports channel that in most cases costs just as much as ESPN.

Bundling is a very good way of guaranting eyeballs to the content Owners (the actual Channel Ownership) more guaranteed eyeballs equals more advertising revenue which allows those channels to be sold at a HIGHLY discounted RATE so as individual subscribers we don't have to pay MORE of the ACTUAL FIXED COSTS associated with content creation and distribution.

Fewer subscribers per channel would cause a MUCH Higher percentage of the related business costs to be shifted over to the individual subscriber rates. The end result would be most Niche channels disappear due to low uptake rates and other channels forced into subscriber rates up to $8-10 per channel.

Family and or viewers (with varied interests) in that ala carte model would likely pay more than they are already under the bundling model. Which leads us to the old axiom, "The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence".

Over the last week decade of so, MULTICHANNEL rates have increased faster than inflation. The increase was not stemmed under government regulatation, or without it, as seen by the several changes lawmakers made and then trumpeted at how Multichannel service Rates would be controlled under each scheme. All the while we have asked for more entertainment choices, High Speed Internet, VOIP. All these innovations requires HUGE amounts of CAPITAL. Providers have to be able to use Subscriber rates to leverage those expenditures.

In the end it comes down to supply and demand. We DEMAND the content, if we didn't want it or didn't see the inherent value in it we WOULDN'T pay for it.

All the talk is just WHINNING, as everybody thinks they deserve something for free or without paying a fair price including some profit margin.

All this talk about changing the system to save money will ultimately do little or nothing to the average rates we now pay for the service. There is NO SUCH thing as a FREE LUNCH.

All the talk about free this or free that, with a purchase of this or that or a guaranteed service contract of multiple months is BULL#[email protected]* ! All the costs of those freebees is rolled into or bundled into the service in some other fashion. All the comes ons have conditioned us into an attitude that we deserve a better deal or a free this or that, SORRY its a business and as a business you should expect that business to be able to make a PROFIT.

Most of the Subscriber service businesse, Cell Phones, Telephone, Internet, Mutlitchannel services have used and are using a bundling business model, because as subscribers we have ASKED FOR IT AND DEMAND IT THROUGH FREE THIS OR FREE THAT. If the bundling model didn't work then those promotions and business models would NOT have attracted so many PAYING subscribers.

So SPEAKING to society as a whole, "SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP".

<RANT OFF>

John

 

[tommiet]

Sent me an email with your mail address... I'll send you some PROZAC for the sports withdrawal problem you're having. JOHN, I'm KIDDING!!!!! I could care less about it, but love to see people get worked up over sports programming. But if we removed all the threads about "where is my sports team" DBSTalk would be much smaller, right?

Years ago during a presentation I was giving, I told everyone that I wanted to replace all sports on TV with re-runs of STAR TREK. Boy did that get their attention!

I did try to watch Pro hockey last year... Oh yeah, they were on strike last year!

I'm just voicing my opinion.

Web,

<RANT ON>

You complain about the high cost of ESPN and then talk about FSN which is another sports channel that in most cases costs just as much as ESPN.

Bundling is a very good way of guaranting eyeballs to the content Owners (the actual Channel Ownership) more guaranteed eyeballs equals more advertising revenue which allows those channels to be sold at a HIGHLY discounted RATE so as individual subscribers we don't have to pay MORE of the ACTUAL FIXED COSTS associated with content creation and distribution.

Fewer subscribers per channel would cause a MUCH Higher percentage of the related business costs to be shifted over to the individual subscriber rates. The end result would be most Niche channels disappear due to low uptake rates and other channels forced into subscriber rates up to $8-10 per channel.

Family and or viewers (with varied interests) in that ala carte model would likely pay more than they are already under the bundling model. Which leads us to the old axiom, "The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence".

Over the last week decade of so, MULTICHANNEL rates have increased faster than inflation. The increase was not stemmed under government regulatation, or without it, as seen by the several changes lawmakers made and then trumpeted at how Multichannel service Rates would be controlled under each scheme. All the while we have asked for more entertainment choices, High Speed Internet, VOIP. All these innovations requires HUGE amounts of CAPITAL. Providers have to be able to use Subscriber rates to leverage those expenditures.

In the end it comes down to supply and demand. We DEMAND the content, if we didn't want it or didn't see the inherent value in it we WOULDN'T pay for it.

All the talk is just WHINNING, as everybody thinks they deserve something for free or without paying a fair price including some profit margin.

All this talk about changing the system to save money will ultimately do little or nothing to the average rates we now pay for the service. There is NO SUCH thing as a FREE LUNCH.

All the talk about free this or free that, with a purchase of this or that or a guaranteed service contract of multiple months is BULL#[email protected]* ! All the costs of those freebees is rolled into or bundled into the service in some other fashion. All the comes ons have conditioned us into an attitude that we deserve a better deal or a free this or that, SORRY its a business and as a business you should expect that business to be able to make a PROFIT.

Most of the Subscriber service businesse, Cell Phones, Telephone, Internet, Mutlitchannel services have used and are using a bundling business model, because as subscribers we have ASKED FOR IT AND DEMAND IT THROUGH FREE THIS OR FREE THAT. If the bundling model didn't work then those promotions and business models would NOT have attracted so many PAYING subscribers.

So SPEAKING to society as a whole, "SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP".

<RANT OFF>

John

 

[JohnL]

I did try to watch Pro hockey last year... Oh yeah, they were on strike last year!

I'm just voicing my opinion.

Tom,

The NHL did play last year in fact my Favorite team was one game from the NHLFinals, BTW that team is the Buffalo Sabres. In 04-05 that was the season that was washed out.

John

 

[kb7oeb]

The only thing that will catch their attention is if people stop subscribing. Dish has more options available without ESPN than most other providers.

 

[WebTraveler]

Hey JohnL, SHOVE IT UP YOUR NOSE.

I am entitled to MY OPINION. You have yours, I have mine. You think you are so cool and great here slamming everyone for having an opinion different than yours. Good for you. ESPN is responsible for higher cable rates. Thats my opinion, and I am sticking to it. Great for your one-sided analysis.

As for FSN, with DISH, I can essentially elect out of FSN if I choose the lowest tier....so that cost CAN BE CONTROLLED BY ME IF I WANT TO. I CANNOT CONTROL WHETHER I GET ESPN OR NOT. Again, it comes down to CHOICE....with FSN, I have a CHOICE. With ESPN, I don't.

So your bias is noted as well as mine. But this is my OPINION, not yours.

Web,

<RANT ON>

You complain about the high cost of ESPN and then talk about FSN which is another sports channel that in most cases costs just as much as ESPN.

Bundling is a very good way of guaranting eyeballs to the content Owners (the actual Channel Ownership) more guaranteed eyeballs equals more advertising revenue which allows those channels to be sold at a HIGHLY discounted RATE so as individual subscribers we don't have to pay MORE of the ACTUAL FIXED COSTS associated with content creation and distribution.

Fewer subscribers per channel would cause a MUCH Higher percentage of the related business costs to be shifted over to the individual subscriber rates. The end result would be most Niche channels disappear due to low uptake rates and other channels forced into subscriber rates up to $8-10 per channel.

Family and or viewers (with varied interests) in that ala carte model would likely pay more than they are already under the bundling model. Which leads us to the old axiom, "The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence".

Over the last week decade of so, MULTICHANNEL rates have increased faster than inflation. The increase was not stemmed under government regulatation, or without it, as seen by the several changes lawmakers made and then trumpeted at how Multichannel service Rates would be controlled under each scheme. All the while we have asked for more entertainment choices, High Speed Internet, VOIP. All these innovations requires HUGE amounts of CAPITAL. Providers have to be able to use Subscriber rates to leverage those expenditures.

In the end it comes down to supply and demand. We DEMAND the content, if we didn't want it or didn't see the inherent value in it we WOULDN'T pay for it.

All the talk is just WHINNING, as everybody thinks they deserve something for free or without paying a fair price including some profit margin.

All this talk about changing the system to save money will ultimately do little or nothing to the average rates we now pay for the service. There is NO SUCH thing as a FREE LUNCH.

All the talk about free this or free that, with a purchase of this or that or a guaranteed service contract of multiple months is BULL#[email protected]* ! All the costs of those freebees is rolled into or bundled into the service in some other fashion. All the comes ons have conditioned us into an attitude that we deserve a better deal or a free this or that, SORRY its a business and as a business you should expect that business to be able to make a PROFIT.

Most of the Subscriber service businesse, Cell Phones, Telephone, Internet, Mutlitchannel services have used and are using a bundling business model, because as subscribers we have ASKED FOR IT AND DEMAND IT THROUGH FREE THIS OR FREE THAT. If the bundling model didn't work then those promotions and business models would NOT have attracted so many PAYING subscribers.

So SPEAKING to society as a whole, "SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP".

<RANT OFF>

John

 

[WebTraveler]

Again, HDme, like JohnL, your opinion. I have mine. ESPN is the highest cost channel on the spectrum per subsciber. I don't care. I rarely watch it and I am a sports guy.

Ummm, no again. ESPN is but one small bit of the price of your monthly service. I could name a dozen channels that I don't watch that cost more than ESPN does when added together... which gets us back to the circular argument.

ESPN is not the evil responsible for high TV rates. I don't even see where anyone can draw that conclusion now matter how you slice things.