I agree completely with this. But the thing that confuses me if this is truly Dish's outlook on sports, why did they add MLB Network after these years of wanting nothing to do with it? That just surprises me.
Charlie and Joe Speak on NY Sports
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 115
- Views 10K
I agree completely with this. But the thing that confuses me if this is truly Dish's outlook on sports, why did they add MLB Network after these years of wanting nothing to do with it? That just surprises me.
That is not true for all teams....Noticed your avatar..Welcome to the world of long suffering Mets fans...Anyway, the Mets just announced for the second year in a row, an across the board ticket price reduction. The product is less than average and the Mets can't draw flies. Same thing in Charlotte with the Panthers. The team held the line with no increases. That in spite of every game a sell out last season. Again, below average product. And really, the tix sell but there are Panthers games where half the seats go unused..
If sports programmers continue to escalate prices, ratings will fall with lower demand. IN other words, no viewers means the layoff notices go out and the top brass starts sweating. That is how prices to the consumer are controlled. By the consumer
I would drop all "soft" channels such as Lifetime, MSNBC all shopping, OWN, Hell I'd drop CNN and Headline News as well. I never watch the fluff on those. I would eschew all niche channels as well.
I watch tv how I read the paper. News, Sports, Business. The rest I can do without.
The contract isn't coming up until 2013 so there's still at least a year left until we see what the outcome will be. I wouldn't be surprised if Dish dropped ESPN and all other Disney-related channels unless Dish and Disney decide to drop the lawsuits and make-up.
Therefore I am not going to enter into ANY commitments with Dish until this is resolved.
I really do not wish to buy equipment, just to stay out of a contract, but I also don't want to get stuck with equipment I cannot sell. Because if Dish has no Disney, no one will want Dish Equipment.
If you really care about Disney and ESPN that much, I think the best advice is to switch tv providers and sell your Dish equipment now because who knows how long this feud between Disney and Dish will last or if it's going to get any worse.
Hey, what a serendipitous bit of timing. My contract commitment with Dish is up at the very beginning of 2013.
Despite some of the complaints I have about Dish, I'm actually not necessarily set on dropping them when my contract is up- they have some good points and cable has some bad points (and vice-versa). I know I'm never going to be 100% happy with anything in this sphere, at least not while it's a near monopoly (Basically only 3 potential providers in any given home). But if Dish loses ESPN or any of my RSNs, that's a deal breaker. Or if cable were to lose those, that'd be a deal-breaker on the idea of me switching back to them down the line.
The reason a lot of households adopted cable/satellite back in the day was live sports, and that's the last barrier to "cord cutting" for a lot of people who get their sitcoms and news and whatever online. I think Dish may be underestimating how important sports our to their business model in a world with the Internet and Netflix and so on and so forth.
I just found this thread and here is my take on what's going on over at Dish.....
Charlie is in the process of exiting the satellite market to persue a internet only set top box venture with Echostar, essentally leaving Dish to be sold, or die out. Here's how I come to this conclusion aside from Charlies comments on the matter. Charlie and Joe have said that they want to gain more affluent costumers whom pay more for programming. Yet their actions are the complete opposite. You can pick up a movie anywhere..... Torrents, Redbox, Appletv, VuDu Blockbuster, Roku, Dish on demand, Directv on Demand, HBO, Cinemax, Starz, Epix, Showtime, TMC, Walmart, Target, Bestbuy, ect... you get my point. How does that make dish separate from the others like Directv, Uverse, Comcast, ect..... It makes them significantly weaker. You can pick up a movie anywhere, and have it instantly or in your hands physically. It amazes me at how many here buy into this when the numbers and actions are completely different, yet the sheeepel still argue that Charlie does no wrong.
There will always be channels you will purchase that you don't want. Weather its lifetime, CNN, Fox news, ESPN or your local RSN. By not offering sports in full time in HD, it significantly hurts dish's lineup and causes those more affluent costumers to look else where. Those affluent costumers usually tend to be power users whom own multiple HDTV's and have more than one HDDVR or some sort of home sharing service. These are the costumers you want to keep as they spend big money on packages, like myself. My average bill with Directv is over 150 dollars because I do sub to premier packages + sporting packages.. I see value in it as the season tickets for the teams I love are significantly cheaper than buying a season ticket (Physical) to have a seat at a ball park, ect. Plus I get to see every game in the league if I choose to. Also, HDRSN's are the ONLY place you get to see your local teams. I don't understand Charlie's theory at alienating local markets as its local programming like this that people come to your service for, and the basic national stuff is second teir. I would love to see someone argue that you don't come to dish for your local programming as then what was the point of adding every dam local in the country on spot beams. Local programming is a vital part of any package, and your HDRSN is a must have as it in itself is local programming.
That leads me to another point that keeping sports programming off of dish has not worked. That is obvious in the subscriber numbers where Dish Network has had quarter after quarter after quarter of sub loss. Where as, the sports king of Directv has had quarter after quarter after quarter of gains. Both company's have had profit increases. The only difference between the two is Dish's profit's come from the fact that they are banking on DVR fees, and the very fact that they are not spending money to put in costumers. Directv's profits bank off of sports packages and programming. Who has the better model of the two.... Directv obviously! Eventually all subs will jump ship or enough and the profits will decline with dish.
Charlie wants to get his programming for cheap... He's a very frugal man, and that's how he came into the position he's in as one of the richest people out there. I have seen this first hand, with details I won't go into publicly. But the problem is, is that costs rise with everything. Charlie wants to pay 1990 rates when programming and everything else has inflated due to market conditions. While we all know why, and that's a separate matter and a completely separate topic (player salaries). Also, when Charlie does something, It usually does not get done right. For instance the MLBTV debacle where the ALT channel was not provided, leaving half of your sub base without MLBTV network programming. Simple things like this, plus the lackluster of sports programming, fights with providers, and the fact that the value of other providers packages are significantly better than dish's have costumers jumping ship. This is a good thing if your trying to implement a new model of TV delivery as it reduces overhead to get such system setup. Charlie sees the internet model as a cheaper model of distribution, and his overhead costs can be 1/4th the cost of what it takes to deliver the signal via satellite. So what he's doing is dyeing the Dish business out and setting up to go to an Internet only delivery system.
Charlie is in the process of exiting the satellite market to persue a internet only set top box venture with Echostar, essentally leaving Dish to be sold, or die out. Here's how I come to this conclusion aside from Charlies comments on the matter. Charlie and Joe have said that they want to gain more affluent costumers whom pay more for programming. Yet their actions are the complete opposite. You can pick up a movie anywhere..... Torrents, Redbox, Appletv, VuDu Blockbuster, Roku, Dish on demand, Directv on Demand, HBO, Cinemax, Starz, Epix, Showtime, TMC, Walmart, Target, Bestbuy, ect... you get my point. How does that make dish separate from the others like Directv, Uverse, Comcast, ect..... It makes them significantly weaker. You can pick up a movie anywhere, and have it instantly or in your hands physically. It amazes me at how many here buy into this when the numbers and actions are completely different, yet the sheeepel still argue that Charlie does no wrong.
There will always be channels you will purchase that you don't want. Weather its lifetime, CNN, Fox news, ESPN or your local RSN. By not offering sports in full time in HD, it significantly hurts dish's lineup and causes those more affluent costumers to look else where. Those affluent costumers usually tend to be power users whom own multiple HDTV's and have more than one HDDVR or some sort of home sharing service. These are the costumers you want to keep as they spend big money on packages, like myself. My average bill with Directv is over 150 dollars because I do sub to premier packages + sporting packages.. I see value in it as the season tickets for the teams I love are significantly cheaper than buying a season ticket (Physical) to have a seat at a ball park, ect. Plus I get to see every game in the league if I choose to. Also, HDRSN's are the ONLY place you get to see your local teams. I don't understand Charlie's theory at alienating local markets as its local programming like this that people come to your service for, and the basic national stuff is second teir. I would love to see someone argue that you don't come to dish for your local programming as then what was the point of adding every dam local in the country on spot beams. Local programming is a vital part of any package, and your HDRSN is a must have as it in itself is local programming.
That leads me to another point that keeping sports programming off of dish has not worked. That is obvious in the subscriber numbers where Dish Network has had quarter after quarter after quarter of sub loss. Where as, the sports king of Directv has had quarter after quarter after quarter of gains. Both company's have had profit increases. The only difference between the two is Dish's profit's come from the fact that they are banking on DVR fees, and the very fact that they are not spending money to put in costumers. Directv's profits bank off of sports packages and programming. Who has the better model of the two.... Directv obviously! Eventually all subs will jump ship or enough and the profits will decline with dish.
Charlie wants to get his programming for cheap... He's a very frugal man, and that's how he came into the position he's in as one of the richest people out there. I have seen this first hand, with details I won't go into publicly. But the problem is, is that costs rise with everything. Charlie wants to pay 1990 rates when programming and everything else has inflated due to market conditions. While we all know why, and that's a separate matter and a completely separate topic (player salaries). Also, when Charlie does something, It usually does not get done right. For instance the MLBTV debacle where the ALT channel was not provided, leaving half of your sub base without MLBTV network programming. Simple things like this, plus the lackluster of sports programming, fights with providers, and the fact that the value of other providers packages are significantly better than dish's have costumers jumping ship. This is a good thing if your trying to implement a new model of TV delivery as it reduces overhead to get such system setup. Charlie sees the internet model as a cheaper model of distribution, and his overhead costs can be 1/4th the cost of what it takes to deliver the signal via satellite. So what he's doing is dyeing the Dish business out and setting up to go to an Internet only delivery system.
Dish is not really alone in this. Sony is trying to put together a PS3 internet TV solution. MS is also rumored to be doing it also.
Sony may be preparing an internet-based cable TV alternative -- Engadget
The main problem they are all running into is that the providers do not want a la carte with the internet TV because it will destroy their cable TV model.
Charlie has stated in the past that he offered the NY RSNs whatever they wanted to charge a la carte and he would carry them and pass all the $$ to them. They said no, they want all the subs in the area paying into them, not just a percentage paying a higher rate. If it was $8/month I bet less than 1/2 the subs would take the channel.
Sony may be preparing an internet-based cable TV alternative -- Engadget
The main problem they are all running into is that the providers do not want a la carte with the internet TV because it will destroy their cable TV model.
Charlie has stated in the past that he offered the NY RSNs whatever they wanted to charge a la carte and he would carry them and pass all the $$ to them. They said no, they want all the subs in the area paying into them, not just a percentage paying a higher rate. If it was $8/month I bet less than 1/2 the subs would take the channel.
Start the games at 6:00 eastern 3:00 pacific. Kids will be out of school in all time zones and the games in the east wont end so late. Heck even 7:00 eastern is better than 8:00
K9SAT
There's so many conclusions that I can't agree with in your post that it would take a post as long or longer to reply! It starts with the emphasis on the importance of sports. But I'm actually going to take a point you made that I agree with.
Over the many years I have had Dish, the MLB scenario of not having the alternate game available is indeed a typical Dish thing. Not having the flagship receiver be able to stream your new Platinum/BBM package and putting on hold selling them is another. I can defend the horrible UI on the receivers that do stream only temporarily because unlike the usual Dish, they implemented this package much quicker than usual, and it should get better with an update. But when, the infamous soon?
If I knew Direct TV better I probably could come up with things they have done strangely too, but it does seem Dish has had many quirks. Yet, all that said, and all the talk of DVR fees, sports problems, and losing channels (usually temporarily, but as we have seen with Disney long term too) there are lots that Dish does right, and when I compare each package I am interested in (higher to highest) along with watching movies often, Dish wins, including a cheaper price and most all the national channels in HD. When they added Blockbuster it saved me $8 a month on top of that. (Dropped Netflix, already had Platinum) There are other reasons including liking their DVR better, and usually getting the exact receiver you want, but that gets into more of a subjective reason. And for those who do like football, I have seen several posts of the $7 sports package that includes the Red Zone as being actually all they need rather than the expensive NFL package, and that is something as I understand Direct does not offer separately.
My conclusion is the opposite of yours. I think Dish is positioning itself for the future which includes satellite, supported by internet services provided by them. And if things don't change, others are going to be following Dish and saying no to sports if they continue to escalate costs and insist on being in the packages rather than in a sports package. I think Dish has plans for the future of Satellite that make it a blend with other forms of getting entertainment.
There's so many conclusions that I can't agree with in your post that it would take a post as long or longer to reply! It starts with the emphasis on the importance of sports. But I'm actually going to take a point you made that I agree with.
Over the many years I have had Dish, the MLB scenario of not having the alternate game available is indeed a typical Dish thing. Not having the flagship receiver be able to stream your new Platinum/BBM package and putting on hold selling them is another. I can defend the horrible UI on the receivers that do stream only temporarily because unlike the usual Dish, they implemented this package much quicker than usual, and it should get better with an update. But when, the infamous soon?
If I knew Direct TV better I probably could come up with things they have done strangely too, but it does seem Dish has had many quirks. Yet, all that said, and all the talk of DVR fees, sports problems, and losing channels (usually temporarily, but as we have seen with Disney long term too) there are lots that Dish does right, and when I compare each package I am interested in (higher to highest) along with watching movies often, Dish wins, including a cheaper price and most all the national channels in HD. When they added Blockbuster it saved me $8 a month on top of that. (Dropped Netflix, already had Platinum) There are other reasons including liking their DVR better, and usually getting the exact receiver you want, but that gets into more of a subjective reason. And for those who do like football, I have seen several posts of the $7 sports package that includes the Red Zone as being actually all they need rather than the expensive NFL package, and that is something as I understand Direct does not offer separately.
My conclusion is the opposite of yours. I think Dish is positioning itself for the future which includes satellite, supported by internet services provided by them. And if things don't change, others are going to be following Dish and saying no to sports if they continue to escalate costs and insist on being in the packages rather than in a sports package. I think Dish has plans for the future of Satellite that make it a blend with other forms of getting entertainment.
Last edited:
The answer is about $43-$44 in today's prices adjusted for inflation using CPI.
The Inflation Calculator
mike123abc said:
Yea the difference between Sony, MS, and Charlie is that Charlie owns his own broadband network and doesn't need the providers to deliver his product!
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
Tampa8 said:
While yes short to medium term this is true ! 10 - 15 years out the satellite model will be for pushing video via ip for distribution. I think that all video delivery will be all ip based utilizing ip streams.
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
This is the crux... these content providers want everyone to pay for their programming, not just the people who actually watch it.
Similar threads
