fox sports dispute

I also think that Dish should change it's webpage about "taking the term sports fanatic to a whole new level" and that the multisport pack offers a "ton" of Regional Sports Networks. ;)
While they are at it, they need to update the Multi-Sport Pack ad in the Gamefinder app. (Press the number 0 on the remote to bring up the banner in this picture.)
1025191924-00.jpg

More than 35 channels of your favorite sports networks? More than 20 Regional Sports Networks? I would love to see how they come up with that count now. (They could be counting the alternate channels for the college sports networks, but those are not full-time channels. I suppose they could also come up with that count by counting the SD feed and HD feed of each channel as separate channels.) :p
 
Could be they're not optimistic about a deal. It would be absolutely foolish if they did give up on RSNs.
There is a way to find a compromise. Sinclair got the deal done with Directv and RSNs. So there's a current new price, for RSNs.

When are the Sinclair local stations deal up on Dish?
 
Could be they're not optimistic about a deal. It would be absolutely foolish if they did give up on RSNs.
There is a way to find a compromise. Sinclair got the deal done with Directv and RSNs. So there's a current new price, for RSNs.

When are the Sinclair local stations deal up on Dish?
Well, that is precisely it: with Directv, there was urgency to get a deal done, due to the broadcast locals contract expiring. I have posted before about this, but based on activity in the uplink reports last year (removal of OTA guide map-down links from the satellite-delivered versions of Sinclair stations, uplinking separate OTA guide data streams for the OTA version of those channels, and then later reversing those changes) it looks like Dish and Sinclair already reached a long-term deal for the local channels at that point. So, it may be quite a long while before Dish feels any real urgency to negotiate with Sinclair again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jamesjimcie
I have said it before, that as soon as I say that they are never coming back, then Dish will go ahead and bring them back. So... They are never coming back! ;)

I think the future of carriers will be losing a lot of expensive popular services as they want too much, subs are dropping cable & satellite at an alarming rate. There just wont be the revenue to pay for all of this unless there are huge rate increases, which the public will not stand for. So it is a lose/lose situation for carriers, that is unless Dish decides to buy some it like AT&T now owns Direct TV. Dish has been trying to add less expensive services like the diginets (which I am happy with), as many are not OTA here), to try to fill the void.
 
Could be they're not optimistic about a deal. It would be absolutely foolish if they did give up on RSNs.
There is a way to find a compromise. Sinclair got the deal done with Directv and RSNs. So there's a current new price, for RSNs.

When are the Sinclair local stations deal up on Dish?
The "new price" is irrelevant when there's a flex pack negotiation to deal with.
 
I think the future of carriers will be losing a lot of expensive popular services as they want too much, subs are dropping cable & satellite at an alarming rate. There just wont be the revenue to pay for all of this unless there are huge rate increases, which the public will not stand for. So it is a lose/lose situation for carriers, that is unless Dish decides to buy some it like AT&T now owns Direct TV. Dish has been trying to add less expensive services like the diginets (which I am happy with), as many are not OTA here), to try to fill the void.
That is a good point. Part of Dish's whole argument in this dispute is that "...The fact is, the costs for TV regional sports rights in America are currently a poor economic deal, only favoring the sports broadcasters..."

In that case, why doesn't Dish buy some Regional Sports Networks, or create some new ones, if they are so profitable? Dish is in the business of making money, right?
 
That is a good point. Part of Dish's whole argument in this dispute is that "...The fact is, the costs for TV regional sports rights in America are currently a poor economic deal, only favoring the sports broadcasters..."

In that case, why doesn't Dish buy some Regional Sports Networks, or create some new ones, if they are so profitable? Dish is in the business of making money, right?
Probable because Charlie is smart enough to not spread the company that thin when they have bigger things to deal with like the 5G build out and the pending Sprint/T-Mobile deal...
 
The "new price" is irrelevant when there's a flex pack negotiation to deal with.
Yes but they can a compromise on that. If someone wants sports pack on a flex pack, that means they want the RSNs. So I'm sure they're fine paying $1 more a month to see the sports. ( Not sure what sports flex price pricing is currently just add +$1 more)

It's certainly a lot better for an increase of $1 on channels you want to watch vs channels you don't even want to watch.

Just like on the old format $5 more for RSN on say Top120+. Sure some RSNs cost slightly more the others say YES Network.

The dispute in it's third month now. No reason it should have dragged on this long, let alone continuing.
 
Yes but they can a compromise on that. If someone wants sports pack on a flex pack, that means they want the RSNs. So I'm sure they're fine paying $1 more a month to see the sports. ( Not sure what sports flex price pricing is currently just add +$1 more)

It's certainly a lot better for an increase of $1 on channels you want to watch vs channels you don't even want to watch.

Just like on the old format $5 more for RSN on say Top120+. Sure some RSNs cost slightly more the others say YES Network.

The dispute in it's third month now. No reason it should have dragged on this long, let alone continuing.
If someone wants a sports pack on the Flex Pack, that means that they want the flexibility to add and remove those sports channels at will. (For example, only subscribing during their favorite team's season, or even only when there is a specific game that they want to watch, and then drop the channels the rest of the time to save money.) Unfortunately, the negotiations are not about what the customers want, but rather what the RSN's want. They want the guaranteed revenue from those subscribers who want the RSN's (and ideally even from subscribers who do not want the RSN's at all) year-round, without the flexibility to remove them from the basic packages.

I think I disagree about your hypothetical $1 increase. I would hate to see the increase on channels that I do want to watch, because then I would have no choice but to pay it. If channels that I do not want to watch increase by $1, then I could drop those channels to save money (or I would have already dropped those channels before the increase took effect) so that way, the increase would not affect me. (I know that the current bundles do not necessarily work that way, but that is the way that they should work in an ideal system.)
 
If someone wants a sports pack on the Flex Pack, that means that they want the flexibility to add and remove those sports channels at will. (For example, only subscribing during their favorite team's season, or even only when there is a specific game that they want to watch, and then drop the channels the rest of the time to save money.) Unfortunately, the negotiations are not about what the customers want, but rather what the RSN's want. They want the guaranteed revenue from those subscribers who want the RSN's (and ideally even from subscribers who do not want the RSN's at all) year-round, without the flexibility to remove them from the basic packages.

I think I disagree about your hypothetical $1 increase. I would hate to see the increase on channels that I do want to watch, because then I would have no choice but to pay it. If channels that I do not want to watch increase by $1, then I could drop those channels to save money (or I would have already dropped those channels before the increase took effect) so that way, the increase would not affect me. (I know that the current bundles do not necessarily work that way, but that is the way that they should work in an ideal system.)

Well people who were given $3 credits off because of RSNs missing, are still technically paying $2 for a channel Dish doesn't even have, then when those credits run out it's back to $5 per month. The entire dispute is just stupid and ridiculous. Greed between two companies and only the customers lose out.

Flex pack is the issue, and it shouldn't be effecting those without the Flex pack. So because they want the money from every Dish subscriber, so then dish says broken business model etc

That's why they need to find the compromise and get that deal done.

People who live in places where you can't try out things like YoutubeTV are stuck with nothing.

Besides then you also have those stupid blackout rules, so say your RSN's missing then say you can't even watch a team's games on a sports package. Which isn't right when your provider doesn't even have the channel.
 
Well people who were given $3 credits off because of RSNs missing, are still technically paying $2 for a channel Dish doesn't even have, then when those credits run out it's back to $5 per month. The entire dispute is just stupid and ridiculous. Greed between two companies and only the customers lose out.

Flex pack is the issue, and it shouldn't be effecting those without the Flex pack. So because they want the money from every Dish subscriber, so then dish says broken business model etc

That's why they need to find the compromise and get that deal done.

People who live in places where you can't try out things like YoutubeTV are stuck with nothing.

Besides then you also have those stupid blackout rules, so say your RSN's missing then say you can't even watch a team's games on a sports package. Which isn't right when your provider doesn't even have the channel.
They are technically receiving everything they are paying for... per the agreement... technically.
 
Well people who were given $3 credits off because of RSNs missing, are still technically paying $2 for a channel Dish doesn't even have, then when those credits run out it's back to $5 per month. The entire dispute is just stupid and ridiculous. Greed between two companies and only the customers lose out.".

This is something I wonder if it is strategic by Dish and I mentioned at another point in another post. Since those without RSN's are still paying the same price as if they had them, Dish is bringing in more income as they don't have to pay the providers. Is that done to make the profit look better when it comes to quarterly reports? For FOX RSN's it has been 3 months, Altitude is 2 months, NBC Sports Chicago is closing in on one month. That is a lot of customers who are paying $5 (or whatever the cost for RSN's is) that people are still paying but Dish isn't paying to the providers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Juan and pattykay
On my commercial account they gave back one dollar per month credit


Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys mobile app
 
If Dish was trying to make the RSNs optional for everyone like it is for the flex pack, then for the channels to maintain their current revenue stream the price would probably have to go from roughly $5 to over $20. I wonder how many customers would balk at that unsubsidized price. I'm dismayed that DTV so easily agreed to continuing the welfare model.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pattykay
If Dish was trying to make the RSNs optional for everyone like it is for the flex pack, then for the channels to maintain their current revenue stream the price would probably have to go from roughly $5 to over $20. I wonder how many customers would balk at that unsubsidized price. I'm dismayed that DTV so easily agreed to continuing the welfare model.

Going to be hard to pull off when it seems no one else is going to try. This would have been a great time for Directv to make a move to get the RSN's in a separate package. Imagine if neither DISH or Directv were carrying them during disputes. But alas not to be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: osu1991 and dare2be
DTV charges $8.49 for their regional sports package above their package plan prices. I believe that is what Dish wants. That way the package prices don't go up when a new deal is negotiated for the regional sports elements. Only those who want the Regional Sports Package would have to pay the new negotiated rates.
 
Well people who were given $3 credits off because of RSNs missing, are still technically paying $2 for a channel Dish doesn't even have, then when those credits run out it's back to $5 per month.
Meanwhile, those who did not ask for credits are still paying the full $5 the entire time. I absolutely agree that the prices of the basic packages need to be adjusted, and if this is what Dish is doing as far as credits, then perhaps that tips their hand for what to expect in the January price changes. In other words, without the RSN's, the scheduled annual increase would only be $2 instead of $5 like usual. So, at the time when Dish normally adjusts the package prices, they will go down by $3 per month for everyone. This would reflect the $5 decrease due to the loss of the RSN, offset by the scheduled increase for all of the other channels in the package. This would match what Dish did to the prices of some of the Latino packages this year, while Univision was still missing. Those who are getting the $3 credits now are technically paying next year's rate, which means that they got hit by that $2 price increase earlier than they should have, but it still reduced the overall bill by $3 per month. Of course, those who requested the credits are the ones who actually watched, and still miss, those channels. So, the $3 reduction (or even a full $5 reduction) in their bills would still not feel like enough, when they would rather have the channels back.
 
If Dish was trying to make the RSNs optional for everyone like it is for the flex pack, then for the channels to maintain their current revenue stream the price would probably have to go from roughly $5 to over $20. I wonder how many customers would balk at that unsubsidized price. I'm dismayed that DTV so easily agreed to continuing the welfare model.
Well, right now, their current revenue stream from Dish is $0.00
 

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

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Top