Dish CEO Hints at Possibly Dropping ALL RSNs
- Thread starter HanoverPretzel
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 60
- Views 10K
A-la-carte won't lower costs for most consumers. Each channel would have to dramatically increase their rates because they need to get the revenue they currently receive. Plus, advertising budgets would go through the roof, because each provider would need to market their channel to a much greater extent then they do now.
Less likely than it is today. At least this way you choose rather you want news at all.
In the case of ESPN , you have to get DISNEY as well ,because they are all the same company. This is one of the reasons Charlie is flirting with the idea of dropping rsns and sports channels into a separate pack. It is rumored that ESPN /Disney is looking for a 100% increase the next time the contract comes due. Both channels are in the lowest programming pack, so it would effect everyone in price. Espn is already responsible for $5.00 of the basic pack , so imagine another $5.00 increase on your bill. I think Charlie is smart and should drop the sports channels into a separate tier. Then if Espn /Disney decides to pull this stunt , we won't have to pay more AGAIN for channels I never watch anyway.
This would be a great solution to our ala carte issues in this country too, if they would allow it . I have advocated this every since I learned about the Canadian sat system.
Yes but most people with Netflix or Hulu still have access to sports elsewhere.
Ok, I may have been wrong about RSNs being cheap, but the point of bandwidth still stands. If that's the problem, stick them on spots and roll the costs into locals. For national packages that need RSNs, just reserve some bandwidth for feeds for hockey, NBA games, etc. It would still be less than putting every RSN up in HD full time on CONUS. And if RSNs cost $2.50 each, then they can't be making much money on the sports package that gets you every RSN.
Another idea would be to start putting a line item on everyone's bill for channels, so that customers can see where their money is going. ESPN costs $5? Put it on the bill. Roll the RSNs into locals, and break out the cost for locals. List each local that demands a retrans fee and list each RSN. Charge a locals fee that is tailored to the cost of locals for that market.
This idea should scare the hell out of programmers. There is tons of talk of people who are 'cutting the cord', IE: getting rid of cable/satellite and depending only on Hulu/Netflix/downloads. I am very close to that point, but I don't want to lose sports and news. If I could buy a cheaper package that gave me news + sports only, I'd jump on it in a heartbeat. With 50mbit mostly uncapped cable internet here, I don't really need Comedy Central, HBO, etc. beamed into my house. Especially if I wanted to lose my scruples and hit up bit torrent.
Another idea would be to start putting a line item on everyone's bill for channels, so that customers can see where their money is going. ESPN costs $5? Put it on the bill. Roll the RSNs into locals, and break out the cost for locals. List each local that demands a retrans fee and list each RSN. Charge a locals fee that is tailored to the cost of locals for that market.
This idea should scare the hell out of programmers. There is tons of talk of people who are 'cutting the cord', IE: getting rid of cable/satellite and depending only on Hulu/Netflix/downloads. I am very close to that point, but I don't want to lose sports and news. If I could buy a cheaper package that gave me news + sports only, I'd jump on it in a heartbeat. With 50mbit mostly uncapped cable internet here, I don't really need Comedy Central, HBO, etc. beamed into my house. Especially if I wanted to lose my scruples and hit up bit torrent.
Two problems. First, talk is cheap. There is most certainly a huge increase of people who selectively download programs. There is most certainly not a huge increase of people only depending on that especially considering the economic times, you would expect more. Yes I have seen certain groups, primarily younger (under 25) who are on the go alot with school, work, socializing, etc... that if on their own may only rely on the internet. I tried to find a study that was on the "Inside Cable News" website. They pointed out a study that was talking about people who rely only on the Internet was dramatically flawed, it included people who live at home, with parents who have Cable. Yes, they do not really watch the Cable because they spend so little time at home, but that skewed the information.
Second, enjoy the uncapped internet while you can, because that is going to be an Achilles heel for any move to provide complete programming online. You must be aware of the recent announcements by providers that they now have a cap, soon will, or a slow down after a certain amount of bits. Right now the amount seems reasonable. Wanna bet that will change?
And if that isn't enough to dim that thought, do you think what is free now will be?
If people change their habits and decide to only watch a very few programs the Internet will (and does now sort of) work. There is no easy answer to escalating costs, I don't thing the Internet will be either overall.
Last edited:
Found the transcript of the latest earnings call. A lot of interesting things said, and especially related to RSNs, and apparently SNY in particular:
Question:
Charles Ergen:
Here's the link to the full transcript, with a some observations about Blockbuster and Tivo:
Dish Network's CEO Discusses Q1 2011 Results - Earnings Call Transcript - Seeking Alpha
Question:
Charles Ergen:
Here's the link to the full transcript, with a some observations about Blockbuster and Tivo:
Dish Network's CEO Discusses Q1 2011 Results - Earnings Call Transcript - Seeking Alpha
Dish lost me, a 13+ year subscriber who bought every damn piece of equipment they offered over the years, the HD modules with the $10 fee for HD Discovery Theater when that was all they had plus the demo channel, every DVR from the early to the monster 921 and 942 (or whatever they were), all the way up to the 922. I bought it all, even bought a 1000.4 myself to get better signal.
All gone because they tanked my RSN (SNY) and in 13 years, our horrible cable company caught up to their HD and now I get all the RSNs in HD and FULLTIME.
I miss my Dish DVRs, that's for sure, because I was weened on them, but overall, the cable has been better than I expected.
I guess to Charlie, I'm just collateral damage!
All gone because they tanked my RSN (SNY) and in 13 years, our horrible cable company caught up to their HD and now I get all the RSNs in HD and FULLTIME.
I miss my Dish DVRs, that's for sure, because I was weened on them, but overall, the cable has been better than I expected.
I guess to Charlie, I'm just collateral damage!
These big multi billion dollar contracts like the one Fox and ESPN just signed with the PAC 12 are not helping matters. The fact is it will only get worse!!
It has always worked here in Philly. Comcast does not share their Sporstnet and Network channels with either satellite provider. Any Phillies, Flyers or Sixers fan cannot cut the cable because of this. I had high hopes when CC was purchasing NBC, that they would finally be forced to share since their loophole was closed, but that never happened. If it ever happens I expect to see dishes popping up like mushrooms, CC is very expensive.
Isn't there a right to have law? Were you have to right to local programming and local channels. That's why when you get MLB tv or a Verses carries an event and your local channel does you have to watch the local feed. I'll have to google this.
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
andrewj0781 said:
It's only for cable companies with more than 36 channels.
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/cblbdcst.html
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
You know premium movie channels like Hbo/Starz/Cinemax/Showtime are offered ala -carte and Lord knows they charge a premium price for them. Why shouldn't the sports channels ,which also charge a premium price, be spun off into their own ala carte pack - just like the premium movie channels? Three things would happen if DISH did this:
1) The price of all top programming packs would drop substantially. This would give all customers a break from the ever increasing price increases.
2) DISH if they were the first to do ala-carte sports packs, would be the true LOW cost provider for all regular programming. THis would also force other cable and satellite providers to reconsider their programming prices too, if they wanted to compete. All customers would benefit in the industry.
3) The customer would would be the winner in this whole thing. IF you wanted sports they would be there and you could add them to your regular top programming pack just like the Premium movie packs today. IF you don't like Sports , you wouldn't have to add them and you could save $$$ and OR add movie packs to your top programming packs.
Also DISH would most likely be able to provide true HD Rsns for everyone ,since the price wouldn't be tied to other regular channels like ESPN is tied to Abc Family/Abc channels and DISNEY. This would be revolutionary in the market place and I see everyone getting what they want. Yes the sports channels would cost more to those who wanted them ,but the premium movie channels are costly too. I mean HBO alone is $16.00 a month. But if you want it you pay the price. Seems fair to me.
1) The price of all top programming packs would drop substantially. This would give all customers a break from the ever increasing price increases.
2) DISH if they were the first to do ala-carte sports packs, would be the true LOW cost provider for all regular programming. THis would also force other cable and satellite providers to reconsider their programming prices too, if they wanted to compete. All customers would benefit in the industry.
3) The customer would would be the winner in this whole thing. IF you wanted sports they would be there and you could add them to your regular top programming pack just like the Premium movie packs today. IF you don't like Sports , you wouldn't have to add them and you could save $$$ and OR add movie packs to your top programming packs.
Also DISH would most likely be able to provide true HD Rsns for everyone ,since the price wouldn't be tied to other regular channels like ESPN is tied to Abc Family/Abc channels and DISNEY. This would be revolutionary in the market place and I see everyone getting what they want. Yes the sports channels would cost more to those who wanted them ,but the premium movie channels are costly too. I mean HBO alone is $16.00 a month. But if you want it you pay the price. Seems fair to me.
If Charlie wants to get rid of all RSNs, that's just fine with me. Maybe not for sports fans but if it means saving money for future HD channels so be it.
