DISH Reaches Long Term Agreement with DISNEY / ESPN / ABC

Toggle sidebar
juan said:
Not for the price he charges..the price he pays for channels

Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!
Click to expand...

Yea but,don't forget how much he ended up paying Rainbow/AMC.And there is no way in Disney World,he will get off cheap with them.
 
juan said:
Way too much optimism in this thread..my guess ESPN channels for sure..everything else..other than sec channel..is a crap shoot..charlie drives hard bargains and likes to cheap out where ever he can

Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!
Click to expand...

Can't wait for all the Disney feeds - not because I care about Disney, but just so you are proven wrong! :p
 
Just think for the other 99% of dish subs who really know nothing about this, whenever the HD channels get lot up, what a surprise it will be for them.

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
 
The Fat Man said:
Dead Horse Moment: How about only contracting for the HD channels. Dish will save money, for customers to upgrade to at least a 211, and open bandwidth.
Click to expand...
Two problems:
1) it assumes that networks will sell only the HD version of the channel. I have yet to see any evidence of this.
2) swapping everyone to at least a 211 will cost $$$$$. Dish has shown that they would rather delay an mpeg4 transition to keep those costs down. Probably a mistake since the bandwidth could allow them to add more networks and make them more competitive.
 
Scott changed his avatar to a sports theme. Could be in reference to the Olympics. BUT it COULD be that something sports-related (e.g. ESPNU in HD) is on the horizon . . .

Anyone?
 
bellevuecoug said:
Scott changed his avatar to a sports theme. Could be in reference to the Olympics. BUT it COULD be that something sports-related (e.g. ESPNU in HD) is on the horizon . . . Anyone?
Click to expand...

I didn't realize ESPNU featured the Jamaican bobsled team! If I had known that I would have watched more U in the past!
 
sam_gordon said:
You could also make the argument that if one (retrans fees or commercials) goes away, the other would have to rise to make up the difference.
Click to expand...

Just curious how they "made up the difference" prior to the retransmission model. I understand the argument; the sat company is making money off our programming, they have to pay us. Then they go sell advertising and say "look at the homes we're reaching through Sat & Cable our programming is worth more to you." Somewhere there is a golden egg laying goose trying to be killed.
 
david_jr said:
Just curious how they "made up the difference" prior to the retransmission model. I understand the argument; the sat company is making money off our programming, they have to pay us. Then they go sell advertising and say "look at the homes we're reaching through Sat & Cable our programming is worth more to you." Somewhere there is a golden egg laying goose trying to be killed.
Click to expand...

The networks used to have a larger audience and could charge more (in inflation adjusted terms) for their commercials. Now with cable getting a large slice of the ad dollars, the networks are supplementing their income with re transmission fees.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 3, Members: 0, Guests: 3)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Share this page

Share this page
Top