Spinning this topic off of the 140 HD thread.

Does anyone know how many people sub to EI on DirecTV?

Does anyone know how many people sub to EI on DirecTV?

In 2008 Total MLB EI was almost 800,000.
I'm not sure how many of those were from D* exactly, But I remember catching a whisper thats its around 400,000 - 500,000. were D* subscribers.

I just read somewhere that Direct had about 80% of all of the EI subs which would mean that if your 800k is correct, then Direct would have about 640k EI subs.

Lets go with your lower 400k total. So if Direct has 400,000 EI subs, at $190 apiece (early bird special) that would bring in a total of $76,000,000 for the year. Does Direct pay MLB more than $76,000,000 for the year?

The package is actually closer to $200 for the year, so $200 x 400k = $80,000,000

If what I read is correct and Direct does have 80% of the EI subs, then 640k x $200 = $128,000,000. Does Direct pay MLB more than $128,000,000?

This is just going on the numbers that Hemi gave me. I have been searching the internet for both sub numbers and finincial info and have had no luck. I did find that Direct offered MLB $100million/yr to make it exclusive, but that deal fell apart.

Yup...I remember that. One of the reasons I left D* to begin with...
In response to Vampz's question above

The point is you and others have no idea what so ever D* is or isn't making or loosing, is just pulling numbers out your vary large a**. Do you honestly think that board of directors and officers of the company are signing contracts for sports packages knowing that they will loose money on every single one of them.

What is is that you have no facts, unless you have internal DirecTV documents that you can publish for all to see to back up your guesses.

Direct seems to be very tight lipped about disclosing the financial aspects of the deals between the leagues. The only one that is easy to find info about is ST. I wonder if it has to do with the fact that ST is exclusive and the others are not?

Does anyone know how many people sub to EI on DirecTV?

It doesn't really matter...what matters is:

1) The base cost of the package for carraige
2) The operational costs of the package.
3) does the number of subs to that package cost justify the expenditures in 1 and 2
4) is there current growth potential based on offering those packages
5) If either costs for 1 or 2 increase, and/or the subs costs increase to cover 1 and 2...will subs continue to be willing to pay.
6) sub loss in general...what are the risks in what seems to be a very tight business model...

There are a lot of variables here...and I can't even claim that my list here is complete! But playing google games isn't going to give you or anyone else the answers...there are people in the world who get paid a log of money to provide those answers...you may want to listen to them. I posted their opinions in the previous thread...

I just read somewhere that Direct had about 80% of all of the EI subs which would mean that if your 800k is correct, then Direct would have about 640k EI subs.

Lets go with your lower 400k total. So if Direct has 400,000 EI subs, at $190 apiece (early bird special) that would bring in a total of $76,000,000 for the year. Does Direct pay MLB more than $76,000,000 for the year?

The package is actually closer to $200 for the year, so $200 x 400k = $80,000,000

If what I read is correct and Direct does have 80% of the EI subs, then 640k x $200 = $128,000,000. Does Direct pay MLB more than $128,000,000?

This is just going on the numbers that Hemi gave me. I have been searching the internet for both sub numbers and finincial info and have had no luck. I did find that Direct offered MLB $100million/yr to make it exclusive, but that deal fell apart.

Do you know why and how it drove up costs? And why that is hurting them now?

No...

In response to Vampz's question above

my response...just so you can't cherry pick the previous thread for a nice cushy set-up for your own...


The point is you and others have no idea what so ever D* is or isn't making or loosing, is just pulling numbers out your vary large a**. Do you honestly think that board of directors and officers of the company are signing contracts for sports packages knowing that they will loose money on every single one of them.

What is is that you have no facts, unless you have internal DirecTV documents that you can publish for all to see to back up your guesses.

HA!!!!!!

Oh man, are you desperate in your D* rapture...even to leverage a personal attack...noted...

Look...none of us have 'internal documents'...so your little 'raising the bar' fallacy here is also noted...

The analysts and stock market have spoken! Sportspacks are a losing proposition! AS I'VE STATED!

The only one pulling numbers out of 'somewhere' was DK and I already called him on that...are you calling him on that too?!? I've only been posting what the analysts have been saying...and they are reasonable authority on this...a lot better authority than anyone playing google-games to rationalize a weak point.

At the end of the day, there is enough evidence on the whole to support the facts that sports packs are indeed a loosing proposition. Those facts being that subs aren't willing to pay, and content providers are asking too much....what more do you need here?

AS for your board of directors...they are perfectly content breaking even right now if it doesn't mean a loss...and I'm sure the 'risk' scenarios are on the table, but just like we don't have your 'documents', we aren't sitting in that room neither. All we have is what's been already said and posted by credible authority, and thats good enough for me...(and it should be good enough for you since you have nothing better to go on...other than hope and D* rapture)

It doesn't really matter...what matters is:

1) The base cost of the package for carraige
2) The operational costs of the package.
3) does the number of subs to that package cost justify the expenditures in 1 and 2
4) is there current growth potential based on offering those packages
5) If either costs for 1 or 2 increase, and/or the subs costs increase to cover 1 and 2...will subs continue to be willing to pay.
6) sub loss in general...what are the risks in what seems to be a very tight business model...

There are a lot of variables here...and I can't even claim that my list here is complete! But playing google games isn't going to give you or anyone else the answers...there are people in the world who get paid a log of money to provide those answers...you may want to listen to them. I posted their opinions in the previous thread...I agree. It is these costs that I am inquiring about. If the base cost is set at the correct price to attract enough subs and maximize the profits, and the profits excede that of the operational cost, then it is profitable. If not, then it is not.

I am curious to see how many people sub to each package and how much Direct has to pay the leagues for each respective package.

At the same time, how much does each pacakge attract potential subs to a particular provider?

Do you know why and how it drove up costs? And why that is hurting them now?

No...
Yes, due to the exclusive deal attempt. But that fell through and we now have no idea what they are paying now nor do we know how many subs they have.

my response...just so you can't cherry pick the previous thread for a nice cushy set-up for your own...



HA!!!!!!

Oh man, are you desperate in your D* rapture...even to leverage a personal attack...noted...

Look...none of us have 'internal documents'...so your little 'raising the bar' fallacy here is also noted...

The analysts and stock market have spoken! Sportspacks are a losing proposition! AS I'VE STATED!

The only one pulling numbers out of 'somewhere' was DK and I already called him on that...are you calling him on that too?!? I've only been posting what the analysts have been saying...and they are reasonable authority on this...a lot better authority than anyone playing google-games to rationalize a weak point.

At the end of the day, there is enough evidence on the whole to support the facts that sports packs are indeed a loosing proposition. Those facts being that subs aren't willing to pay, and content providers are asking too much....what more do you need here?

AS for your board of directors...they are perfectly content breaking even right now if it doesn't mean a loss...and I'm sure the 'risk' scenarios are on the table, but just like we don't have your 'documents', we aren't sitting in that room neither. All we have is what's been already said and posted by credible authority, and thats good enough for me...(and it should be good enough for you since you have nothing better to go on...other than hope and D* rapture)
That's fine. I wasn't cherry picking, I wasn't finished. There were a lot of posts for me to get through and I am still working on it.

I agree. It is these costs that I am inquiring about. If the base cost is set at the correct price to attract enough subs and maximize the profits, and the profits excede that of the operational cost, then it is profitable. If not, then it is not.

Which there is ample enough evidence already in play that they are at the break-even point, have been for a while, and risk going in the red due to potential sub-loss on those packages and rising carraige costs.


I am curious to see how many people sub to each package and how much Direct has to pay the leagues for each respective package.

Which only tells a part of the story at a very shallow level


At the same time, how much does each pacakge attract potential subs to a particular provider?

it doesn't...not these days anyway...

If you've read ANY of my posts and retained any of it during the course of discussion, due to D*'s monopoly of sportspackages for some time already, its presumed that the 'new sub' flow has stabalized, and that anyone who wants a sportspackges bad enough to pay for it, is already with D*, hence the documented concern over limited growth potential.

That's fine. I wasn't cherry picking, I wasn't finished. There were a lot of posts for me to get through and I am still working on it.

Don't bother...there are people out there who get paid a lot of money to do that type of analysis. You are better off listening to them. At least they are impartial for the most part...

Which there is ample enough evidence already in play that they are at the break-even point, have been for a while, and risk going in the red due to potential sub-loss on those packages and rising carraige costs
It is this evidence that I am seeking. If you have it can you post it? :up

It is this evidence that I am seeking. If you have it can you post it? :up

I already did...and referred you too it several times...

I already did...and referred you too it several times...
I thought that was ST only info, not the other packages. I'll go back and read those links to see if there is mention of the other packages.

Just went back and read the two links and they were pretty much only talking about ST. Although ST maybe breaking even or losing money, that does not mean the others are as well, nor does it mean that particular individual sport packages are not making money.

you mean to tell me that while playing 'google-games' you didn't see the HUGE profit loss (46%) for D* regarding carraige costs and the not as HUGE EI carraige cost of 13 percent?!?

If I forgot to post those article, I'm sorry...but if you want me to I will


....ah, the blind rapture of fanboyism...:D just kidding... ;)

you mean to tell me that while playing 'google-games' you didn't see the HUGE profit loss (46%) for D* regarding carraige costs and the not as HUGE EI carraige cost of 13 percent?!?

If I forgot to post those article, I'm sorry...but if you want me too I will
Can you? Thank you! :up

BTW, profit loss simply means that their profits are down from the last report. They are still profiting.

Can you? Thank you! :up

Sure...

directtv sports package profit costs - Google Search

take your pick...but be thorough...

Cost of MLB Extra Innings on DirecTV Increases to $191, Up 13% (http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3050:cost-of-mlb-extra-innings-on-directv-increases-to-191-up-13&catid=48:ei-mlb-network&Itemid=82)

ei price increase...

Can you? Thank you! :up

BTW, profit loss simply means that their profits are down from the last report. They are still profiting.

Oh man...talking about a moving the goalposts fallacy...:D You don't profit by just 'not losing'...lmao...

I hope you teach your students better than you practice yourself here...

Oh man...talking about a moving the goalposts fallacy...:D You don't profit by just 'not losing'...lmao...
A profit is still a profit. If profits decrease by 99%, they are still profiting (not by much, but they are still profiting).

Here is all of the financial info you need. You can see that they are still profiting this last quarters. It is just that the profits are down from last quarter by a significant amount (almost half as much)

http://investor.directv.com/financials.cfm

Sure...

directtv sports package profit costs - Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=directtv+sports+package+profit+costs&btnG=Search&cts=1243139662468)

take your pick...but be thorough...

Cost of MLB Extra Innings on DirecTV Increases to $191, Up 13% (http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3050:cost-of-mlb-extra-innings-on-directv-increases-to-191-up-13&catid=48:ei-mlb-network&Itemid=82)

ei price increase...
Neither one of those addresses the questions of "How much does Direct pay MLB for EI?" and, "How many people sub to EI on Direct?" I already know the costs subs pay, I posted that myself. I already know that Directs profits are down due to operating costs and sub additions. Nothing in the google search showed the financial disclosure agreement between MLB and Direct nor did it mention how many people sub to EI.

In order to make a profit Direct would need to get more money from the subs of EI than they pay to MLB. In order to determine if they are profitting we need to know how much money each EI sub pays (which we already know), how much Direct pays to MLB for the carriage rigths (which we do not know and which I am trying find), and how many people sub to EI (which we also do not know and which I am also trying to find).

DUDE!

Do NOT tick me off...

You already lost the argument

now read why..ok? I gave you what you asked for!

You trying to constantly rationalize your loss here is getting annoying...

Can you? Thank you! :up

BTW, profit loss simply means that their profits are down from the last report. They are still profiting.


A profit is still a profit. If profits decrease by 99%, they are still profiting (not by much, but they are still profiting).

Here is all of the financial info you need. You can see that they are still profiting this last quarters. It is just that the profits are down from last quarter by a significant amount (almost half as much)

The DIRECTV Group, Inc. - Latest Financial Reports (http://investor.directv.com/financials.cfm)

But thats still a losing proposition, thats was all I claimed...

lmao...

small profits are frail...are they not?

rationalize
rationalize
rationalize

I'm probably going to get banned from this forum for humiliating you so please stop! :D :D :D

OMG...you SO frickin' lost...

Neither one of those addresses the questions of "How much does Direct pay MLB for EI?" and, "How many people sub to EI on Direct?" I already know the costs subs pay, I posted that myself. I already know that Directs profits are down due to operating costs and sub additions. Nothing in the google search showed the financial disclosure agreement between MLB and Direct nor did it mention how many people sub to EI.

In order to make a profit Direct would need to get more money from the subs of EI than they pay to MLB. In order to determine if they are profitting we need to know how much money each EI sub pays (which we already know), how much Direct pays to MLB for the carriage rigths (which we do not know and which I am trying find), and how many people sub to EI (which we also do not know and which I am also trying to find).

You posted an argument from false authority...

Now READ!

And don't tick me off with your typical stubborness (aka argument by doggedness) by defending an old, stale argument you already lost!

Read this too...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(psychology)

I'm getting real tired of proving you wrong and having you just get in a endurance contest with me...

You need help

Statement:

Sportspacks on D* are a losing propsition.

Supported by:

Sportspacks at their current carraige rate and subscriber base break even at best.

An increase in carraige costs, or decrease in subsriber base can force D* in the red on sportspacks. ITs a fragile profit margin if there even is one.

My statement:

Increase cost for subs, increase carrage costs for providers, and a willingness to pay....is a LOSING PROPOSITION!

What more needs to be said already?!? ( an apology, that would be nice...)

There are many variables I think "profit" can be looked at. A simple one I think would be how much of a dent would be made in Directv's subscriber base if for example Sunday Ticket was not a exclusive. Let play pretend for a moment. Would many jump over to Dish Network now that they also had the ticket, or at least entertain the offer to Dish

As a martekting and a business assest Sunday Ticket is a "protector" I guess you can say as it does I think keep many customers at Direct, thus added to the profit?

When you look up the term "lost leader" is a business manual is the Sunday Ticket logo there?? Is that what Direct may See the Ticket as from a business perspective?

From a personal standpoint, I recently moved from Direct to Dish, enjoy the service, enjoy the HD, enjoy the current mix of sports cannels that are available. But come September it will be different. Heck come July/August it will be differnet as the annual how much/where you able to get Superfan for free debate posts start. I was a Sunday Ticket sub, I have told myself now with a two small kids, even during winter months I was not really able to get full enjoyment out of the Ticket, thus I am thinking I could use that money elsewhere. We will see :)

Just my two cents......

:eek:

Vampz, I appreciate the effort. Again, nothing you providing gives the answer to how much Direct is paying MLB for EI nor does it answer how many people sub to EI. Until we know this, we have no idea if Direct is making or losing money off of EI.

At the same time, nothing in the links you have provided actually says if they are losing money off of EI, LP, or CI, any comment about them breaking even, losing money, or making money is pure speculation and just an opinion.

But thats still a losing proposition, thats was all I claimed...

lmao...

small profits are frail...are they not?

rationalize
rationalize
rationalize

I'm probably going to get banned from this forum for humiliating you so please stop! :D :D :D

OMG...you SO frickin' lost...Any banning will be a direct result of you being unable to have a discussion without making personal attacks. Ignoring that aspect of your post and focusing only on the topic, my point still stands. Direct is still making a large profit.

Net income in Q1 of 2009 was $135 Billion
Q1 revenues increased 7% to $4.90 billion
Operating profit before depreciation and amortization1 (OPBDA) declined 8% to $1.09 billion
Oerating profit decreased 35% to $424 million compared to last year's first quarter.

This means they still made a HUGE friggen profit of billions of dollars. So, they are not small profits.

This does not address my question nor does it address the topic of this thread. Again, since you have made the claim that sports packages are not a profitable investment, I would like to know if you have any evidence to support said claim. You have yet to provide any. To make it simple I have two questions in which I am seeking help by others.

1. How much does Direct pay MLB for they use of EI?
2. How many Direct customers sub to EI?

The same questions can be asked for LP and CI as well.

These two questions will help us determine which, if any, sports packages are profitbable or not?


Profit = #of EI subs (their payments) - (D* payment to MLB + other EI costs) + MLBNet income

Statement:

Sportspacks on D* are a losing propsition.
That is what I am asking you to prove


Supported by:

Sportspacks at their current carraige rate and subscriber base break even at best.
Where is the evidence of this? You have only demonstrated this for ST ONLY.


An increase in carraige costs, or decrease in subsriber base can force D* in the red on sportspacks. ITs a fragile profit margin if there even is one.
True...But we do not know where that redzone is. We have yet to determine if any sports package besides ST is breaking even, making a profit, or losing money


My statement:

Increase cost for subs, increase carrage costs for providers, and a willingness to pay....is a LOSING PROPOSITION!
True...What are the carriage costs? Are they making money currently?


What more needs to be said already?!? ( an apology, that would be nice...)Actual prove and evidence. Actual numbers to show if EI is making or losing money, CI is making or losing money, LP is making or losing money. None of us have been able to confirm anything yet.

But thats still a losing proposition, thats was all I claimed...

lmao...

small profits are frail...are they not?

rationalize
rationalize
rationalize

I'm probably going to get banned from this forum for humiliating you so please stop! :D :D :D

OMG...you SO frickin' lost...

the only reason you will get banned is for your flaming and baiting behavior.

Read this too...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(psychology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_%28psychology))

I'm getting real tired of proving you wrong and having you just get in a endurance contest with me...

You need help
Give it up...

I and everyone else knows that you have yet to prove anything. You have yet to show if any package outside of ST is breaking even, losing money, or making a profit. Not one thing in one of your posts even came close to demonstrating that.

I will make it simple. What are the operating costs and revenues for one of the packages? You have shown me these for ST (which I am appreciative for). Until you can show me this info you have not proven anything.

the only reason you will get banned is for your flaming and baiting behavior.
When one resorts to name calling, victory chants, and/or strawmen arguments, it is usually because they have nothing else to add.

vampz, you have no good reason to be here. quit adding to your posts sarcastic remarks. stop turning the discussion into something personal. it was old along time ago and now it's just gotten real childish on your part. now you're trying to sabotage this thread. get help please,you really really need it...........

When one resorts to name calling, victory chants, and/or strawmen arguments, it is usually because they have nothing else to add.

:up

To get back to the Topic Question.
I would say Yes Sports packs are profitable. If they weren't they wouldn't be offered.
They clearly add base package subscribers.
I think the sports packs like NFL ST would be even more profitable if D* and NFL weren't so F'en Greedy. If every Provider carried NFL ST for about $200 in HD I KNOW for a FACT there would be atleast 5 to 10 times the amount D* currently has.
Its really cut and dry, D* knows this thats why they want it exclusive for a Billion Dollars. They don't want people to go somewhere else , Becuse people will.
Sports is all D* has.
Movies No ,Local channels Barely,and Only the very basics. and with less markets HD and SD then E* or cable. Less HD then E* and Fios. Without NFL and MLB, D* would be nothing.
Face it!. No movies, No HD without their sports, Poor Excisting customer offers.

the only reason you will get banned is for your flaming and baiting behavior.

The only one flaming and baiting is DK...yet your biases prevent you from seeing the obvious, allow me to open your eyes...:rolleyes:

Old boy has been proven wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt, yet he keep trying to rationalize and come up with different permutations in order to come up with something that makes him look less wrong than he is!

If thats not baiting, I don't know what is!

Sports packs are a losing proposition, and in spite of his best efforts, he has yet to prove otherwise...

The numbers don't support him, the analysts don't support him, the stock market doesn't support him...yet there he is...post after post, repeating, rationalizing, and playing games...

...and then of course, you chime in with personal attacks whenever he gets in trouble...:)

...Sports packs are a losing proposition...
Evidence?

Evidence? I bet you'll see first hand in the next few years when ST jumps up to $500 per season. Don't think it won't, It will. I'll even bet this year D* will already lose ST subscribers do to the economy. Sure might be cheaper then going to the games , But its even cheaper to watch fooball OTA or on your local cable or Satellite channels .
I know 5 people who subscribed to ST since 2000 that are not renewing this year. I bet thats the case all over. I have no ones house to go to every sunday this year. Thats sucks, But I'll be damned I'm paying $380 for HD football

Hemi, I do not question that they may possibly lose some ST subs this year, but I doubt that it will ever reach $500 for the package.

When one resorts to name calling, victory chants, and/or strawmen arguments, it is usually because they have nothing else to add.

Yes...thats one thing you HAVE proven by your own example...good job.

And we can add argument by repetition, argument by doggedness, argument to the man, argument by needling, fallacy of composition, the bandwagon argument, and moving the goalposts to your list here...

And all this to disprove a single statement I made...

Sports packs are a losing proposition.

I based this claim on the simple fact that they are getting too expensive for providers to carry and getting to expensive for subs to purchase. The analysts, the market, and the numbers all occur with this...

Yet you are coming up with yarn after yarn, rationalization after rationalization to avoid having to accept this fact. As if it is something just plain to TERRIBLE for you to imagine, that the almight all powerful D* has a weakness....

Please...deal with your personal problems in a more constructive way. My statement is true, my statement has been supported, and my statement stands.

...and all the red herring argumetns you throw at it regarding EI and whatever else cannot change that.

I bet you'll see first hand in the next few years when ST jumps up to $500 per season. Don't think it won't, It will. I'll even bet this year D* will already lose ST subscribers do to the economy. Sure might be cheaper then going to the games , But its even cheaper to watch fooball OTA or on your local cable or Satellite channels .
I know 5 people who subscribed to ST since 2000 that are not renewing this year. I bet thats the case all over. I have no ones house to go to every sunday this year. Thats sucks, But I'll be damned I'm paying $380 for HD football
Perhaps...If that happens then they will lose some subs to ST.

We do have info on ST and ST is pretty much a break even package. Do you know of the other sports packages are profitable?

Evidence?

posted and supported a long time ago...

Hemi, I do not question that they may possibly lose some ST subs this year, but I doubt that it will ever reach $500 for the package. Its Up to $380 right now for HD ST. You don't think by it will rise $120 more near the end of the contract? This debt gotta get paid somehow. Losing ST subs aren't going to help anything. That will clearly make the excisting customer pick up the tab.
I doubt NFL will say don't worry about the rest of the Billion you owe me.:)

Sports packs are a losing proposition.
Evidence?

Look, I started this thread with a consistent point that has not changed. I know that ST may not be very profitable, but my question all along has been about the other sports packages as well. Refer to the first post and every other one I have made. Nothing has changed.

If you can answer this question, then please do so: Are the other sports packages profitable for DirecTV?

You have claimed they are not, but have yet to provide any evidence to your claim. If you have nothing to support your claim that they are a losing proposition, then please move on. If you do, then can you please provided said evidence.

Perhaps...If that happens then they will lose some subs to ST.

We do have info on ST and ST is pretty much a break even package. Do you know of the other sports packages are profitable?

note: the fallacy of composition

Its Up to $380 right now for HD ST. You don't think by it will rise $120 more near the end of the contract? This debt gotta get paid somehow. Losing ST subs aren't going to help anything. That will clearly make the excisting customer pick up the tab.
I doubt NFL will say don't worry about the rest of the Billion you owe me.:)
It is possible that they add some more options and make them more costly, but I honestly do not think that they will raise the price that it will cost to get what we have now by $120. Not with everything else staying equal

I may be wrong, but I would be suprised

posted and supported a long time ago...
You did not. I will challenge you for every single person to see. Here is the challenge: WHERE DID YOU POST THIS?

I would be willing to bet you $100 that his post of "evidence" does not exists. You have provided links to ST, but I am not asking about ST, I am asking about the others.

Evidence?

Look, I started this thread with a consistent point that has not changed. I know that ST may not be very profitable, but my question all along has been about the other sports packages as well. Refer to the first post and every other one I have made. Nothing has changed.

If you can answer this question, then please do so: Are the other sports packages profitable for DirecTV?

You have claimed they are not, but have yet to provide any evidence to your claim. If you have nothing to support your claim that they are a losing proposition, then please move on. If you do, then can you please provided said evidence.

I have claimed that sports packages in general are a losing proposition.

I supported that claim.

You are asking this question committing the fallacy of composition...

You are also asking for evidence on something, yet you cannot provide any strong evidence to the contrary. You have played some google-games to come up some permutation of information you think you can use to your advantage, and that would be an argument from false authority...

So I don't know what else you need here to accept that D* isn't as awesome as you previously thought...

Perhaps...If that happens then they will lose some subs to ST.

We do have info on ST and ST is pretty much a break even package. Do you know of the other sports packages are profitable? They all turn a Profit I would guess , But not directly. Thats my guess why E* doesn't have many. He wants direct proffit. Not spend more then he makes off something , and hope some other proffit ofsets the losses. That works for a while, But not forever. You'll all see. I'm not saying E* will surpass D*, But Cable,Uverse,Fios will be winning. I bet in a short 5 years time, things won't be as expected, By either satellite company. I hate to say it ,But I believe E* and D* will be ONE in 2013. Thats My prediction!

note: the fallacy of composition
What are you talking about. One package is not an indication of all of the others nor is it an indication of all of them combined. Just because ST does not make money does not mean the others do not, nor does it mean that all of them combined do not bring in money.

You have shown that ST is not very profitable. I am asking if this is the case for the others as well.

I have claimed that sports packages in general are a losing proposition.

I supported that claim.
You have not supported any such claim. You have made the claim over and over, but have not supported it. You have claimed you have supported it over and over, but have actually failed to do so. Everything you have posted was about ST only.

They all turn a Profit I would guess , But not directly. Thats my guess why E* doesn't have many. He wants direct proffit. Not spend more then he makes off something , and hope some other proffit ofsets the losses. That works for a while, But not forever. You'll all see. I'm not saying E* will surpass D*, But Cable,Uverse,Fios will be winning. I bet in a short 5 years time, things won't be as expected, By either satellite company. I hate to say it ,But I believe E* and D* will be ONE in 2013. Thats My prediction!
I would think so as well, but I have not been able to find any evidence to support if they are making a profit or not.

You did not. I will challenge you for every single person to see. Here is the challenge: WHERE DID YOU POST THIS?

I would be willing to bet you $100 that his post of "evidence" does not exists. You have provided links to ST, but I am not asking about ST, I am asking about the others.

I did...and you failed to prove otherwise...

And I don't play google-games, and I don't play dance-monkey-dance games to satisfy your need for redemption here...remember, the simples answer is usually the correct one...and the simplest answer has already been provided...

It is possible that they add some more options and make them more costly, but I honestly do not think that they will raise the price that it will cost to get what we have now by $120. Not with everything else staying equal

I may be wrong, but I would be suprised I wouldn't at all be surprised. D* isn't anyones friend but D*. Just the same as Charlie not. No matter how much BS he spouts off in his Charlie chats.

I wouldn't at all be surprised. D* isn't anyones friend but D*. Just the same as Charlie not. No matter how much BS he spouts off in his Charlie chats.
I agree with that, but I feel that they know they would lose ST subs faster by going up $120 than by not.

I did...Show your credibility then...

Last challenge for all on this forum to see...Where is said evidence?

http://www.rightnation.us/forums/style_emoticons/default/popcorn3.gif

The only links you posted were found here. (http://www.satelliteguys.us/dish-network-vs-directv-war-zone/175814-sports-packages-profitable-providers-2.html#post1832923) This is not evidence to anything about sports packages one way or another. There is no mention if Direct is losing or gaining money on the packages as a whole.


(http://www.satelliteguys.us/dish-network-vs-directv-war-zone/175814-sports-packages-profitable-providers-2.html#post1832923)

What are you talking about. One package is not an indication of all of the others nor is it an indication of all of them combined. Just because ST does not make money does not mean the others do not, nor does it mean that all of them combined do not bring in money.

You have shown that ST is not very profitable. I am asking if this is the case for the others as well.

I don't know where you've been, but D* profits fell 46 percent last quarter. As has been posted by yourself and others, this has been attributed to many factors, most notably the higher carriage costs compared to what subs were paying...

...and ignoring ST at the momentwhich we know is break-even at best, and note that EI carraige costs rose 13 percent!!! :eek:

for some reason, it doesn't add up that EI could be a guiding light here when it fits into the same pattern as everything else...46 percent! THATS A LOT! No sports pack with a 13 percent increase in carraige costs is going to play redeemer here...

Now I know you are looking for a smoking gun, but this trail of bodies is more than enough to prove my statement, and has been all along.

Show your credibility then...

Last challenge for all on this forum to see...Where is said evidence?

http://www.rightnation.us/forums/style_emoticons/default/popcorn3.gif

The only links you posted were found here. (http://www.satelliteguys.us/dish-network-vs-directv-war-zone/175814-sports-packages-profitable-providers-2.html#post1832923) This is not evidence to anything about sports packages one way or another. There is no mention if Direct is losing or gaining money on the packages as a whole.


(http://www.satelliteguys.us/dish-network-vs-directv-war-zone/175814-sports-packages-profitable-providers-2.html#post1832923)


I posted it! I just did again! And unless you can post sufficient and credible evidence to the contrary...it continues to stand!

The only crediblity in question right now is your own. You are arguing from a completely emotive position to blindly defend your provider, and have failed...

I would think so as well, but I have not been able to find any evidence to support if they are making a profit or not. I don't think they want you to really know, Mainly because I bet it looks on paper like they don't make much, again Directly. Problem with D* and E* is its one extreme to the other.
D* looks way into the future, which is good, But sometimes not worth the risk or the money.
E* looks at right now. Whats good now isn't always good later. Then he falls behind, and has to take drastic measures to get back up. Like dropping things for others. Just plain Dumb! And they are about done adding, And now they have no plan. 1 satellite isn't going to help a company with 2 sets of satellite set ups. So what will we lose next year is the question.
They need to start meeting in the middle,and cover now and the next 2 years.
D* is growing really strong. And they are better of a company the E*. BUT not adding anything for programming ,Because they plain to far ahead , so now you all have to wait.
Do I like their Programming or equipment, Well NO. But it doesn't mean I wouldn't invest in them.
D* would be unstoppable, By Just adding more HD, Movie packs, Locals, and Cut down on the Upgrade costs. They would Have E* falling to their Knees.
I for one would over look D* slower DVRS if the programming was just right.:)

vampz, you have no good reason to be here. quit adding to your posts sarcastic remarks. stop turning the discussion into something personal. it was old along time ago and now it's just gotten real childish on your part. now you're trying to sabotage this thread. get help please,you really really need it...........

AGREED 10000%

I just got done reading the thread and good lord vampz its the same crap you spewed 6 months ago....oh sports packs are not profitable

Do you have nothing better to do? Or is it that DK's profile pic turns you on and you feel the need to respond to him so you can see more of his picture? Seriously you seem to "pick a fight" with EVERYONE.

As for the flaming, I see you like to flame and bait with these oh so funny one liners :rolleyes:


Oh man, are you desperate in your D* rapture

ah, the blind rapture of fanboyism

I hope you teach your students better than you practice yourself here

OMG...you SO frickin' lost...

And don't tick me off with your typical stubborness (aka argument by doggedness) by defending an old, stale argument you already lost!

You need help

Old boy has been proven wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt, yet he keep trying to rationalize and come up with different permutations in order to come up with something that makes him look less wrong than he is!

All of the above were directly in this thread...and then there is the

Do NOT tick me off...

Um....I read all of DK's and others posts and where did they tick you off? Because you dont like the answers they posted


I'm probably going to get banned from this forum for humiliating you so please stop!
no you'll probably get banned from the area for thinking you're "all cool" in your small little world but you'll probably get thrown out for flaming/slamming/baiting/just being a grade a jackass as far as most of us are concerned.

To take a line from your book "your arguments are really getting old"...better yet I'll add to it

"Your act is as old and stale as Al Bundy's underwear" :D

I don't know where you've been, but D* profits fell 46 percent last quarter. As has been posted by yourself and others, this has been attributed to many factors, most notably the higher carriage costs compared to what subs were paying...

...and ignoring ST at the momentwhich we know is break-even at best, and note that EI carraige costs rose 13 percent!!! :eek:

for some reason, it doesn't add up that EI could be a guiding light here when it fits into the same pattern as everything else...46 percent! THATS A LOT! No sports pack with a 13 percent increase in carraige costs is going to play redeemer here...

That alone is not evidence that they are not profiting. A 46% decrease in total profits is still billions in profits (Direct is still making money). 13% increase in EI carriage cost does cut into the profits for EI, but that does not mean that they still did not profit.

That is no redeemer as you have still yet to provide evidence to this claim and have still not shown if EI is actually making or losing money.

in all fairness Ice...to you give any consideration as to what I am responding TOO?

Balance it out a little...I admit that I can be a hothead, but not without provocation...

The issue here is that certain people can't handle the slightest bit of criticism regarding their provider...and thats been the issue all along. All I've done is exploit that...after all, there was not a whole lot of conversation going on in this discussion group without me...

I don't think they want you to really know, Mainly because I bet it looks on paper like they don't make much, again Directly. Problem with D* and E* is its one extreme to the other.
D* looks way into the future, which is good, But sometimes not worth the risk or the money.
E* looks at right now. Whats good now isn't always good later. Then he falls behind, and has to take drastic measures to get back up. Like dropping things for others. Just plain Dumb! And they are about done adding, And now they have now plan. 1 satellite isn't going to help a company with 2 sets of set ups. So what will we lose next year is the question.
They need to start meeting in the middle,and cover now and the next 2 years.
D* is growing really strong. And they are better of a company the E*. BUT not adding anything for programming ,Because they plain to far ahead , so now you all have to wait.
Do I like their Programming of equipment, Well NO. But it doesn't mean I wouldn't invest in them.
D* would be unstoppable, By Just adding more HD, Movie packs, Locals, and Cut down on the Upgrade costs. They would Have E* falling to their Knees.
I for one would over look D* slower DVRS if the programming was just right.:)Perhaps we will never know. It could very well be that Direct is losing money, which is why it is difficult to find the actual numbers.

I think it is probably due to the fact that the financial terms are not made public due to anti trust violations. Only ST was made public, probably because it is exclusive. Since the other packages involve other providers, the amount they pay is kept a secret.

This is just my opinion. I have no idea why the info is hard to find.

One thing I can say, is that because of the sports packages, Direct has probably gained more subs than they would have without them. That is probably what their main goal is all along.

That alone is not evidence that they are not profiting. A 46% decrease in total profits is still billions in profits (Direct is still making money). 13% increase in EI carriage cost does cut into the profits for EI, but that does not mean that they still did not profit.

That is no redeemer as you have still yet to provide evidence to this claim and have still not shown if EI is actually making or losing money.

You are committing the fallacy of composition...my argument was never about EI.

What are you missing? My point could not have been simpler...

If higher carriage costs are a problem associated with D*'s loss in profits, and EI and ST have had notable carriage cost increases during that time period, which they have, and there is an understandable risk involved should the cost increases be passed onto the subs, that they would lose subs...I mean doesn't that add up to a losing proposition to you?

in all fairness Ice...to you give any consideration as to what I am responding TOO?
uh yes I have....You didnt read what I said which is I read the whole thread. And it looks like DK is having the normal conversation without baiting or flaming that you decide to inject



Balance it out a little...I admit that I can be a hothead, but not without provocation...
no you want to pick a fight with anyone. You've done it constantly with folks here.

We know you dont like sports packages...WE GET IT



The issue here is that certain people can't handle the slightest bit of criticism
like you?



All I've done is exploit that...
you mean spewing the same thing over and over and over and over? OK you call it exploiting. I call it spewing the same thing



after all, there was not a whole lot of conversation going on in this discussion group without me...
maybe there would be if you didnt feel the need to attack everyone

in all fairness Ice...to you give any consideration as to what I am responding TOO?

Balance it out a little...I admit that I can be a hothead, but not without provocation...

The issue here is that certain people can't handle the slightest bit of criticism regarding their provider...and thats been the issue all along. All I've done is exploit that...after all, there was not a whole lot of conversation going on in this discussion group without me...
Give it up...will you? It is not about me. I can careless if you criticize Direct. Like I said earlier, I would prefer to have FiOS, but wont because I cannot take it with me when I travel. In fact I even created a thread criticizing Direct yesterday (http://www.satelliteguys.us/directv-forum/175799-directv-commercial-lie.html).

If you have nothing constructive to add about, "Are sports packages profitable", then please don't add anything at all. If you would like to discuss the topic, I am more than willing to do so.

Perhaps we will never know. It could very well be that Direct is losing money, which is why it is difficult to find the actual numbers.

I think it is probably due to the fact that the financial terms are not made public due to anti trust violations. Only ST was made public, probably because it is exclusive. Since the other packages involve other providers, the amount they pay is kept a secret.

This is just my opinion. I have no idea why the info is hard to find.

One thing I can say, is that because of the sports packages, Direct has probably gained more subs than they would have without them. That is probably what their main goal is all along. I agee 100% with all of the above. Except D* is not losing money from sports packs. Proffits are down, But as stated adding 1/2 a million subs in 1 Quarter cost BIG BUCKS. Someone has to pay for them receivers and Technitions.
But when it levels off which it will, D* will be making a Huge profit.

In fact I even created a thread criticizing Direct yesterday (http://www.satelliteguys.us/directv-forum/175799-directv-commercial-lie.html).

.:eek::yikes:river
I can't believe you said those things.:D:D:D

E* profits are up because they aren't putting out 1/16 of the money D* is fronting.

You are committing the fallacy of composition...my argument was never about EI.

What are you missing? My point could not have been simpler...


But his thread covered ALL of the packages. Not just one. Which I think is where your confusion comes from.
You have given some links that dealt with ST, but he was wanting more info on the others as well. Of course you are not the only one he was asking to do so.

I want to thank you for making a post on topic and not resort to name calling. :up

You are committing the fallacy of composition...my argument was never about EI.
I know. It was about sports packages in general. Do you have evidence to support that sports packages in general are not making a profit (I know ST may not be, but what about all of them in general). I just used EI as an example to determine if one of them (anyone would do) is making a profit. I have yet to find info as to if it or any other sports pack is making a profit or not.


What are you missing? My point could not have been simpler...
I know you point. I want to know if they ARE or ARE NOT making money. I have yet to find evidence one way or the other.


If higher carriage costs are a problem associated with D*'s loss in profits, and EI and ST have had notable carriage cost increases during that time period, which they have, and there is an understandable risk involved should the cost increases be passed onto the subs, that they would lose subs...I mean doesn't that add up to a losing proposition to you?The DECREASE in profits (in which profits are still in the billions) is due to carriage costs, SUB ADDS, and other factors. We cannot confirm if it is losing until we know the actual cost and revenue of the packages. Even if costs go up on the package, they can still be turing a profit. We need the actual numbers to determine this.

Until we have knowledge/evidence to the actual numbers, anything we say about the packages losing money or making money is pure speculation.

Keep in mind, I have yet to conclude that they are or are not turning a profit. I have only asked questions and asked for evidence. You claimed they are not, I wanted evidence to this claim. Hemi claimed they might be, and I asked for the same evidence from him as well.

I agee 100% with all of the above. Except D* is not losing money from sports packs. Proffits are down, But as stated adding 1/2 a million subs in 1 Quarter cost BIG BUCKS. Someone has to pay for them receivers and Technitions.
But when it levels off which it will, D* will be making a Huge profit.
I created a scatter plot showing the negative correlation between sub adds and profits over the last five years. There is a clear correlation between subs increasing and profits decreasing.

Attached is the plot

:eek::yikes:river
I can't believe you said those things.:D:D:D

he should have his DirecTv card pulled...not the one in the reciever...his "fanboy" card ;)

he should have his DirecTv card pulled...not the one in the reciever...his "fanboy" card ;)
Call the D* police. :p

uh yes I have....You didnt read what I said which is I read the whole thread. And it looks like DK is having the normal conversation without baiting or flaming that you decide to inject


no you want to pick a fight with anyone. You've done it constantly with folks here.

We know you dont like sports packages...WE GET IT


like you?


you mean spewing the same thing over and over and over and over? OK you call it exploiting. I call it spewing the same thing


maybe there would be if you didnt feel the need to attack everyone

in my own defense here...DK does nothing but bait me. IF you chose to ignore it, thats fine. But his consistent reliance on doggedness and fallacy are what provoke me. IF you do not consider that a crime here...than that is your call...but it does nothing to change what it is...

As for fighting, the only clear way to avoid 'fighting' with this group is to just agree with them on every point because the slightest bit if criticism is not tolerated. I bring up a valid point, and I am the one being flamed for it. I lose my temper, then I look like the bad guy. You may not agree with me either Ice, and thats fine. But that doesn't change it from what it is either.

Honestly, Ice...and with all due respect here. I am merely asking you to see my point of view, here. That is all. I don't think its fair to be blaming me all the time when it obviously takes two people to have a discussion...

nah....I'm not worried ;)

in my own defense here...DK does nothing but bait me. IF you chose to ignore it, thats fine. But his consistent reliance on doggedness and fallacy are what provoke me. IF you do not consider that a crime here...than that is your call...but it does nothing to change what it is...

As for fighting, the only clear way to avoid 'fighting' with this group is to just agree with them on every point because the slightest bit if criticism is not tolerated. I bring up a valid point, and I am the one being flamed for it. I lose my temper, then I look like the bad guy. You may not agree with me either Ice, and thats fine. But that doesn't change it from what it is either.

Honestly, Ice...and with all due respect here. I am merely asking you to see my point of view, here. That is all. I don't think its fair to be blaming me all the time when it obviously takes two people to have a discussion...
All I am doing is asking the same questions to everyone and asking for evidence to my main question. You have claimed you have provided evidence and I just want to know where said evidence is so I can get help on addressing the question of the thread. If you think asking for evidence is baiting, then I don't know what else to tell you.

nah....I'm not worried ;)
:cool:

I want to thank you for making a post on topic and not resort to name calling. :up

I know. It was about sports packages in general. Do you have evidence to support that sports packages in general are not making a profit (I know ST may not be, but what about all of them in general). I just used EI as an example to determine if one of them (anyone would do) is making a profit. I have yet to find info as to if it or any other sports pack is making a profit or not.

I know you point. I want to know if they ARE or ARE NOT making money. I have yet to find evidence one way or the other.
The DECREASE in profits (in which profits are still in the billions) is due to carriage costs, SUB ADDS, and other factors. We cannot confirm if it is losing until we know the actual cost and revenue of the packages. Even if costs go up on the package, they can still be turing a profit. We need the actual numbers to determine this.

Until we have knowledge/evidence to the actual numbers, anything we say about the packages losing money or making money is pure speculation.

Keep in mind, I have yet to conclude that they are or are not turning a profit. I have only asked questions and asked for evidence. You claimed they are not, I wanted evidence to this claim. Hemi claimed they might be, and I asked for the same evidence from him as well.

I said sports packs are a losing proposition...and supported that. (now we can add the burden of proof fallacy to your list)

They could be profitable now, but risk being a loss tomorrow, and if there is a substantial enough risk...that is still a losing proposition...

Just Breaking even is a losing proposition too

What could you possibly say or do to prove that sports packages in general are NOT a losing proposition when costs are rising , new subs are questionable, existing sub retention is fragile, profits in general are substantially lower thus adding to the risk factor? Cherry picking the facts, and fallacy of composition does nothing to change the general statement I put in the table.

I mean...come on...you've repeated yourself over and over and once again made me look the bad guy for losing my temper, and you still have yet to refute my very simple and substantiated claim.

Remember, the simplest answer is usually the correct one...

All I am doing is asking the same questions to everyone and asking for evidence to my main question. You have claimed you have provided evidence and I just want to know where said evidence is so I can get help on addressing the question of the thread. If you think asking for evidence is baiting, then I don't know what else to tell you.

I provided evidence to support my claim as I've stated.

If you are trying to package your OP question as a separate discussion abandoning my original statement, that is something different entirely.

With all due respect Vampz, you have yet to provide any evidence one way or the other.

With all due respect Vampz, you have yet to provide any evidence one way or the other.

Ignoring the evidence I have provided as it suits you is not respect...

AGREED 10000%

I just got done reading the thread and good lord vampz its the same crap you spewed 6 months ago....oh sports packs are not profitable

Do you have nothing better to do? Or is it that DK's profile pic turns you on and you feel the need to respond to him so you can see more of his picture? Seriously you seem to "pick a fight" with EVERYONE.

As for the flaming, I see you like to flame and bait with these oh so funny one liners :rolleyes:









All of the above were directly in this thread...and then there is the


Um....I read all of DK's and others posts and where did they tick you off? Because you dont like the answers they posted


no you'll probably get banned from the area for thinking you're "all cool" in your small little world but you'll probably get thrown out for flaming/slamming/baiting/just being a grade a jackass as far as most of us are concerned.

To take a line from your book "your arguments are really getting old"...better yet I'll add to it

"Your act is as old and stale as Al Bundy's underwear" :D

:up:up:up

Ignoring the evidence I have provided as it suits you is not respect...


you have not provided any evidence. you're just posting your personal feelings and opinions on the subject. perhaps you have forgotten what scott posted yesterday? now iceberg is in here too and you still don't get it? your little childish comments are very nauseating. :rolleyes:

:up:up:up

Rey...you have added no value to this discussion other than to 'gang up' on me for the sinister crime of disagreeing with you. I'd expect a little more out of you than that...

you have not provided any evidence. you're just posting your personal feelings and opinions on the subject. perhaps you have forgotten what scott posted yesterday? now iceberg is in here too and you still don't get it? your little childish comments are very nauseating. :rolleyes:

http://www.satelliteguys.us/dish-network-vs-directv-war-zone/175814-sports-packages-profitable-providers-4.html#post1833141

Read and stop adding childing comments of your own...

See what I mean, ICE? What have I done to Rey to deserve that obviously baiting behavior?

Rey...you have added no value to this discussion other than to 'gang up' on me for the sinister crime of disagreeing with you. I'd expect a little more out of you than that...
:rolleyes:
you have added even less. i wouldn't expect anything else from a flamer.........

Ignoring the evidence I have provided as it suits you is not respect...
Show me what I am ignoring.

The only way to determine if they are profiting off of SP is to know the operating costs and the revenue of the packages themselves, or to provide a link to an article in which someone else has already determined if they are profitable by looking at the numbers themselves.

Like I've originally been asking, if anyone has info on the costs of the packages and the number of subs, this will be helpful for me in answering the question of this thread.

http://www.satelliteguys.us/dish-network-vs-directv-war-zone/175814-sports-packages-profitable-providers-4.html#post1833141

Read and stop adding childing comments of your own...


i read it :rolleyes: post links on your info. this means nothing to any of us here....... post real evidence.

http://www.satelliteguys.us/dish-network-vs-directv-war-zone/175814-sports-packages-profitable-providers-4.html#post1833141

Read and stop adding childing comments of your own...
That is not evidence to anything. It is simply a conclusion on your part made on pure speculation. You have no idea what the costs or profits are, so you have no idea if they are actually making a profit.

Again decrease in profit does not mean no profit. It only means they are not MAKING as much money.

i read it :rolleyes: post links on your info. this means nothing to any of us here....... post real evidence.


you see that post above vampz? see how i have no need to include baiting and sarcastic remarks? give it a try.......

That is not evidence to anything. It is simply a conclusion on your part made on pure speculation. You have no idea what the costs or profits are, so you have no idea if they are actually making a profit.

Again decrease in profit does not mean no profit. It only means they are not MAKING as much money.

I REPEAT!

I Support my statement that sports packages are a losing proposition on the whole and provided ample enough reasoning to support my claim.

Your whole take on 'profits' is nothing more than a fallacy of composition in an attempt to dispute my claim. A fallacy that fails to prove or dispute anything.

That is why I asked you if your 'profits' angle on the whole thing was a separate discussion...because the profits angle is but a part of the fact that sports packs are indeed a losing proposition...

This is why I lose my temper...you are constantly moving the goalposts or committing fallacy, rather than address my statement directly.

OK...

If anyone can help me out in researching the costs and sub numbers for SPs I would be grateful. I will continue to research myself as well. Until then, I guess the answer to the question, "Are sports packages profitable?" will not be known at this time.