New Sports Regional for LA

[DishSubLA]

Here we go with yet another channel some will hope Dish will get:

It has been announced that Time Warner is starting 2 LA regional sports networks: one in English; the other in Spanish to be launched in about 18 months. The reason this is gonna be a must have for sports fans is because Time Warner has signed the Lakers to a long-term contract. Time Warner may even still sign more teams, or at least one more biggie. However, just having the Lakers is a major coup and may be all they need to get started.

So, now sports fans will have to go through the nail biting to hear word if Dish (infamous cheap Charlie) will provide the channel at launch. My brother is going to have a hiss-fit if he can't watch the Lakers on Dish. He's gonna go ballistic, and I'll never hear the end of it. Come to think of it, my cousin would get pretty pissed off, too, along with legions of Lakers fans. This could make some Lakers fans in LA switch to a different provider. Still 18 months to go. We shall see.

 

[Tampa8]

So this will be the fault of Dish, that each city is now having two, three, four sports channels, all wanting the highest possible price, all negotiating separately...... I can tell you in advance. If they want enough that Dish has to raise rates for everyone, it may not happen.

How about this. Only LA subs will pay for it. Dish does not Carry YES and the pressure was certainly on for a long time for them to. I think most everyone has come to the conclusion if you want YES get Direct TV. I would prepare your brother to be ready to switch. He will be out of or almost out of his contract if he is in one...

The model was based on a couple of sports channels per region. If regions are going to have several now, all wanting extreme money, something has to change.....Having a regional for each sport isn't going to fly even for cable. An example? Charter refused to carry SNY even though the Mets are considered in my region. It wasn't till the Uconn Huskies went to SNY that Charter added that channel. They couldn't justify the cost for one televised sports team. Because of the popularity of College basketball here, they felt the ad revenues would now be justified.

Take a look at the schedule of most of the regionals. There is no real programming during the day. Even at night if there is no sports team being televised there is very little to watch. And for that we pay alot of money.

 

[Mr Tony]

remember when Fox Sports West 2 (now Prime Ticket) was on a spotbeam to LA area? That was a few years ago but maybe they should do that

 

[HanoverPretzel]

So this will be the fault of Dish, that each city is now having two, three, four sports channels, all wanting the highest possible price, all negotiating separately...... I can tell you in advance. If they want enough that Dish has to raise rates for everyone, it may not happen.

I'm not in the LA area, and don't care about the Lakers, but, in general terms, I think having access to the local sports teams' games is a big driver of subscriptions for cable and satellite. When I was a kid, my family subscribed to cable for the first time primarily because my father and I wanted to have access to every Orioles (baseball) game. Just recently as an adult, when I had to cancel my cable package due to cost, I declined to subscribe to their $20 lifeline (Basically OTA only) or $30 no-sports packages because without the local sports teams, I felt like I'd get more out of diverting the money to something that didn't have anything to do with television if it came right down to it. When I started looking at some dish options a few weeks later, my primary determining factors after "Can I afford to pay the bill?" were "Will I get all the Orioles games?" and "Will I get my favorite news channel, MSNBC?". Anything below that combo and I felt like I didn't want to sacrifice to pay a bill that wouldn't offer me enough value.

Even after subscribing to Dish, one of it's pluses versus cable is that it carries the alternate overflow channel for CSN Mid-Atlantic, so I can see those Caps games that conflict with Wizards games (or whatever). One of the big minuses is that I have to miss those Caps games that air on Versus (Versus is a America's Top 250 channel on Dish, and I can't afford that package), and don't get an out of market local OTA channel that used to give me additional Ravens games (Not a huge deal, because mainly they don't air the home games out here, and I have a relative who has tickets and usually invites me to the home games -- and if not I can try to watch at someone's house or hit a bar a couple times a year -- but it's something I do think about).

I'm not even, except for Ravens football (Which I'm kind of fanatical about), someone who watches every game of my favorite sports teams. I usually get really into it and watch all the games for a few weeks, then just catch the box scores or news clippings for a while, then get into it again. But when I want to watch a game, it's very important that it be available to me.

It's not that I totally ignore television shows and movies, but, truthfully, in this day and age, Netflix and Redbox are inexpensive enough that they are more convenient -- I pick the movie, and can pause it to make dinner, take care of my dog, take a phone call, rest my eyes if they are strained, etc.. And the idea of scheduling my life around television shows feels obsolete these days, generally one can catch them online later on hulu or whatever (Not consistently with my current slow Internet connection, but in generalized terms). Granted, people can get DVR, but I'm not paying for it personally -- I am poor enough that a barbones no-HD no-DVR type setup is all I can really manage or justify. In the end, yeah, I'll turn on the tv and channel surf and catch a sitcom or some wrestling every once in a while, and occasionally I might watch a movie on it, but that's not what I'm paying for, that's just a bonus.

Anyhow, I don't think I'm alone in this by any means. Probably a good 50% of the adult male population in this country has cable or satellite primarily because of sports, and usually it's their local sports that they mostly watch. I had a friend who had relatives with Dish Network a few years back, and Dish's slowness to pick up MASN actually caused them to pay a massive fee to exit their contract after only a few months with Dish because they had a family member who couldn't do without Orioles games.

So, I've got to imagine, these RSNs that they get into contract disputes with or are slow to pick up cost them big money in terms of losing subscribers and potential subscribers. I'm surprised that Dish doesn't just pay whatever the increase is. I mean, if they play hardball with FX or CourtTV or whatever channel like that, very few people will leave over it, but the local sports RSN(s) is(are) a "must-have" for a ton of people.

 

[mike123abc]

Perhaps one day Dish will have to price sports differently for each market. The problem is that Dish does not want to have to have different prices for each market.

Of course if they had it listed for each market, it might draw a lot more critism of the RSNs if people see the add on charge for them as a separate line item that was not optional.

 

[Tampa8]

Perhaps one day Dish will have to price sports differently for each market. The problem is that Dish does not want to have to have different prices for each market.

Of course if they had it listed for each market, it might draw a lot more critism of the RSNs if people see the add on charge for them as a separate line item that was not optional.

Exactly my point. (I hate it when someone makes my point better than I did... ) It isn't whether or not Dish should carry the local RSN's, it should. But at what cost? My point about three, four or more local RSN's is exactly what I was getting at that Mikeabc suggested. It may be time to make that local market pay for them.

 

[DishSubLA]

All good points. I think the issue for Charles will be price. Charlie really wants to provide it all for local sports fans, but only if the price it right. That means Time Warner shouldn't be too greedy, but they probably will. The challenge for Dish will be that the Lakers is recognized as among the most successful sports franchises today, the here and now, and because of its wins and 3peats has finally replaced the Dodgers as the team closest to LA's heart because of its current and very recent championships creating $$$ and ratings as opposed to other well-know, storied sports franchises that just aren't in the running for championships in their respective sport.

On the other hand, it seems Dish did not add Fox Sports West 2 (now Prime Ticket) until Charlie as forced to as part of renewing the contract for LIL KTTV Fox, 11, for just a week after reaching new carriage agreements for LIL KTTV, Charlie answers a question about Fox Sports West 2 on the Chat (a few also asked in previous Chats with Charlie answering "too expensive") saying that they will now carry FSW2, but there were some logistics involved before they could air it, and "It cost a lot of money. And, well, I know we just paid a lot money for [the LA local Fox]".

No RSN wants to be ala carte or have a set-up where people have to individually request and pay "extra" for the service, they all want to be in the clear at the lowest package. That will also be a huge sticking point if Time Warner wants too much money.

So, yes, the price has to be right for Charlie to take it, no matter what, unlike the LA LIL's that Charlies always seems forced to pay the King's ransom. LA LIL's are everyone, and the Lakers aren't. Time Warner has no leverage I can think of, so it'll be all up to Charlie and he well pass if too expensive, unlike Fox's massive leverage with its LA O&O's and other pay channel holdings. It will, at lest, be interesting to see this play out.

 

[HanoverPretzel]

Time Warner has no leverage I can think of,

Well, other than thousands of off-contract Lakers fans calling up and canceling their Dish Network service the first time they can't see a game because they don't get the channel...

 

[NASHMAN1]

All good points. I think the issue for Charles will be price. Charlie really wants to provide it all for local sports fans, but only if the price it right. That means Time Warner shouldn't be too greedy, but they probably will. The challenge for Dish will be that the Lakers is recognized as among the most successful sports franchises today, the here and now, and because of its wins and 3peats has finally replaced the Dodgers as the team closest to LA's heart because of its current and very recent championships creating $$$ and ratings as opposed to other well-know, storied sports franchises that just aren't in the running for championships in their respective sport.

On the other hand, it seems Dish did not add Fox Sports West 2 (now Prime Ticket) until Charlie as forced to as part of renewing the contract for LIL KTTV Fox, 11, for just a week after reaching new carriage agreements for LIL KTTV, Charlie answers a question about Fox Sports West 2 on the Chat (a few also asked in previous Chats with Charlie answering "too expensive") saying that they will now carry FSW2, but there were some logistics involved before they could air it, and "It cost a lot of money. And, well, I know we just paid a lot money for [the LA local Fox]".

No RSN wants to be ala carte or have a set-up where people have to individually request and pay "extra" for the service, they all want to be in the clear at the lowest package. That will also be a huge sticking point if Time Warner wants too much money.

So, yes, the price has to be right for Charlie to take it, no matter what, unlike the LA LIL's that Charlies always seems forced to pay the King's ransom. LA LIL's are everyone, and the Lakers aren't. Time Warner has no leverage I can think of, so it'll be all up to Charlie and he well pass if too expensive, unlike Fox's massive leverage with its LA O&O's and other pay channel holdings. It will, at lest, be interesting to see this play out.

Charlie should just have Dish be sold out by AT&T and stop playing cheap with how he handles his company. He already f-ed up the NYC market with no YES Yankee Network, MSG and MLB Network. If at all possible, Charlie should just throw in the towel and let his minions get fired and let AT&T handle Dish and absorb the U-Verse branding to become Dish-Verse. DV should let YES and MSG be available in their base packages. Dish-Verse should also let TW give in and sell the new Lakers network because I think viewers will like the fact that subs will mostly come back to the newly rechristened Dish-Verse. Charlie's hardball tactics should end since he already shut out many sports fans to DTV and basically do what Mitchell Henderson did, become An hero.

 

[Tampa8]

And the MILLIONS of other subscribers thanks Dish for not paying a kings ransom then passing on the cost to all of us. "No YES" was the correct call. The relatively few subscribers in LA (If Time Warner is asking way too much) or NY compared to all the subs will not make Dish raise everyone's cost just so you can get a channel that wants too much money. Instead of blaming Dish, why not call YES and ask them why they won't allow Dish to put it A La Carte? You do realize the only ones who can watch actual Pro Sports teams are those in the RSN right. So why not make it A La Carte and then you can add it and pay for it. At that point you will realize just how much they want for the very few they serve. It isn't as if the many NY Yankees fans across the country will get it, they won't because you can't watch the games outside the RSN's DMA.

In NY you have other choices. Why do you care if Dish carries YES? Get cable or Direct TV, even Dish has actually said that. Of course I want my RSN too, but instead of harping on Dish, I would switch. And if Cable is too much, maybe I would start to realize why Dish won't carry YES.
As I pointed out in a post, even our Cable Company did not carry SNY till just a few months ago when they acquired more sports teams to televise. Cost was the reason.

 

[NASHMAN1]

And the MILLIONS of other subscribers thanks Dish for not paying a kings ransom then passing on the cost to all of us. "No YES" was the correct call. The relatively few subscribers in LA (If Time Warner is asking way too much) or NY compared to all the subs will not make Dish raise everyone's cost just so you can get a channel that wants too much money. Instead of blaming Dish, why not call YES and ask them why they won't allow Dish to put it A La Carte? You do realize the only ones who can watch actual Pro Sports teams are those in the RSN right. So why not make it A La Carte and then you can add it and pay for it. At that point you will realize just how much they want for the very few they serve. It isn't as if the many NY Yankees fans across the country will get it, they won't because you can't watch the games outside the RSN's DMA.

In NY you have other choices. Why do you care if Dish carries YES? Get cable or Direct TV, even Dish has actually said that. Of course I want my RSN too, but instead of harping on Dish, I would switch. And if Cable is too much, maybe I would start to realize why Dish won't carry YES.

That's actually right, I really do think that switching was a great idea, I never had Dish, but from the very beginning I had D* when I got them from local cable. It wasn't too bad and it is great because at least the way they credit their viewers due to channel disputes with free local distants for those affected until that particualar situation was solved. I'm very happy that they did that unlike how DN gives you a $5 off for your bill. So basically I'm kinda satisfied with what I have and it isn't really that much of an issue whether or not I have YES/MLB Network or not because DTV has it since they carry the $$$$ unlike how DN only has so much it can afford. So in retrospect, I'm wanting the new Laker network to be launched in 3D or HD, either way, it's still great, now lets see how DN will go with the carriage of LakerTV.

 

[kstuart]

Perhaps one day Dish will have to price sports differently for each market. The problem is that Dish does not want to have to have different prices for each market.

Of course if they had it listed for each market, it might draw a lot more critism of the RSNs if people see the add on charge for them as a separate line item that was not optional.

Actually Dish already has this.

AT120 has no RSNs and AT120Plus has your local RSN (and FSC and FUEL) for $5 more. (FSC and FUEL are recent additions, it used to be just the RSN for $5).

When Dish had locals as a separate charge, you could add only certain networks (and later when locals were a package price, Dish deducted $1.50 per channel that was missing).

So, there is no reason that they could not have an asterisk and a footnote:

$6.50 in some Southern California zipcodes that have receive extra regional channels.

PS This was not done with YES because YES insisted on National Availability !

 

[Tampa8]

I don't see that as being the same thing at all. In your reference, they are offering no RSN's with one package, the same price for anyone who orders. Or, you can order any number of other packages that does include RSN's, again for the same price for anyone who orders it.

That is very very different than having a price for someone in CT getting RSN's, another price for someone in LA getting RSN's, yet another price for someone in Dallas, etc, etc... That is not something Dish currently does. The network reference is nothing more than a credit off your bill, it is not charging different amounts for different cities per se, because if you then get all your networks, you will pay the same amount as anyone else who gets all their networks.

In addition, YES can not be offered nationally, at least not to show Major League games, that was never the issue. The issue is, they are only for the NY market, Just as NESN is for a particular market only, but the amount Yes wants to charge would force Dish to either start to charge a different (Higher) amount for NY subscribers, or make everyone pay more so that NY could get YES. IF - and this point it is only IF the new LA RSN follows suit and charges alot, you can see the problem. How often can Dish, Direct, etc.. keep raising everyone's bill to cover a few other markets strictly for overly expensive or too many RSN's? If the RSN's would allow a La carte for instance, Dish would have no problem offering a hundred of them..... (Well, except for transponder space. )

The RSN's are well aware of their high cost, so won't allow A la Carte, they want their cost buried in a package price....