NFL Network Dispute? -- Resolved
- Thread starter zippyfrog
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 523
- Views 55K
Sure it can, Directv offers NFL ST, Billion dollars expense Dish doesn't have .
Also dish pays for no NY RSNs, they don't pay Tribune, they don't pay for NFL Network either.
So I would say Dish maximizes profit as much as they can since they don't ever reduce the income the receive when they drop channels.
Still increases every year.
Samsung Galaxy S6 Active
Exactly.
Imagine dish HAD NFL ST.
Imagine Dish carried NY RSNS
you think Dish would still be less?
I don't, Dish would still need to keep that maxed out 6% profit margin.
Samsung Galaxy S6 Active
Meanwhile, with all the costs of NFL ST, NY RSNS, DTV has a margin of close to 10%.
25 million vs 13.9 with sling included.
IMO Sling TV is costing money, not making it.
Charlie is making as much as he can while still trying to under cut the competition.
And yet Still can't NET a subscriber.
If you believe otherwise , we'll that your own business.
NFL Sunday Ticket has 2-3 million paying subscribers.
What does sling have?
A $20 package and they still can't sell it.
If Directv can have a profit margin of 10% and still add subscribers, we'll IMO that's a thriving business.
A company with a 4% less profit margin and still can't add subscribers, needs to look into itself on what the problem is.
Not blame the competition or ever network on the face of the earth for everything.
Samsung Galaxy S6 Active
First, none of the pay-tv providers are adding any real significant subscriber numbers, a testament to the saturation of an already maxed-out market. One may point to a recent quarterly addition of 214,000 DTV subscribers, but that coincides with a loss of 240,000 Uverse subscribers, many of which switched over from Uverse to DTV after the merger. That still points to a net loss of subscribers, not added subscribers for AT&T/DTV.
The difference in historical total subscriber numbers can be fully attributed to the NFLST monopoly.
The difference in historical total subscriber numbers can be fully attributed to the NFLST monopoly.
Dish has run some huge discounts for new customers, sometimes amazingly low. But yes they do let the existing customers bills go up, but I think Ergen can see the writing on the wall. I just wish he had been as aggressive against Viacom as he is against Tribune and NFL Network.
And who do we blame for the monopoly?
Directv for paying , or Charlie for not making a bid?
Samsung Galaxy S6 Active
If that was the case, you and I both know Charlie would have been suing the crap out of the NFL and Directv for steering potential customers away from Dish with this programming "Monopoly"
Just like his frivolous pathetic $75,000 Tribune lawsuit he has brought to the table.
Samsung Galaxy S6 Active
Ok, now we have proof your bias is clouding your sense of logic. So now you're suggesting Charlie is to blame that no other provider (Comcast, Cox, etc) has access to NFLST?
Wow. I'm done here.
And again, I don't see anyone calling out this "Monopoly".
So apparently no other bidders wanted to pay, or they just flat out couldn't afford it.
The point is you can't sit there and talk about how pathetic Charles income is with 6%
You have spend money to make money.
Samsung Galaxy S6 Active
Explain your answer.
Directv Hughesnet, Yeah been there done that.
Sling, Okay only massive sling fans there are out in the real world are satellite guys members.
So what government contracts does dish have that are so crucial to their customers?
Networks are government influenced, not Dish Network.
Samsung Galaxy S6 Active
HighesNet has a substantial contract with the US Government. And yes, DTV owned them at one point, however they have done nothing but grow since Dish bought them. Not to mention HughesNet is the largest satellite internet provider in the US, and if memory serves me correctly, both America's, although that could be incorrect.
So to say I trust Charlie who has maintained a multi billion dollar company with financial advice and acquisitions, over Troch77's bitching about it on the internet would be an understatement.
So to say I trust Charlie who has maintained a multi billion dollar company with financial advice and acquisitions, over Troch77's bitching about it on the internet would be an understatement.
You shouldn't trust Charlie.
Why would you?
You act like he's doing us all a favor, that's your biggest problem.
You hold this "Small business " owner to the High hevens.
He doesn't give a crap about you.
We are all for the talking.
Stop acting like he's such an upstanding businessman.
Because he's far from it.
He's not your neighbor that owns your local hardware store down the street.
He's putting maximum profit, before anything else.
He's not about saving you money.
And Hughesnet, wow stop traffic they have a whopping 1 million customers.
And how many years did it take for that?
Samsung Galaxy S6 Active
You see, my bill is drastically less than with any other provider, and most providers base their negotiations off of what he did previously. They get better rates for all the companies. So I would be inclined to say he is saving me quite a bit of money, on two platforms. So hate him and ostracize him as you choose, but whether you like him or hate him, he is still saving me more money than you are. He is also giving me better conversations than you, as everything out of your mouth(figuratively) is how you don't like him, and basically worthless. And I'm not alone in that sentiment, although I know you don't care what folks think around here,
Last edited by a moderator:
