Dish's senior vice president of programming, David Shull, talks to Bloomberg about the costs of programming in the video in the link below. Thought it would be interesting to share.
Dish's Shull Says Costs to Acquire Content Are Rising - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/dishs-shull-says-costs-to-acquire-content-are-rising/2011/08/17/gIQAMjkJMJ_video.html)

He didnt really say much. I would have loved to hear about DISH -vs- DISNEY and see how thats going.

Soon!

No talk about sports which is the most costly programming. He main point was that most subscribers want a single bill. I feel that this is less important than offering a deal when you take multiple services. That is what the cable companies are doing with the triple play for three services. By Dish not offering internet service, which has an 80% gross profit margin, it makes it much more difficult to offer substantial discounts on video services and movies which at best have a 50% margin.

Also with an internet business ISP you have little or know content to pay for so you aren't fighting with greedy sports leagues and movie moguls.

Dish is positioning itself to be able to provide all three though. I believe they will be in a great position in the near future with all the acquisitions they've been making.

Wish he'd talked about the HD vs. SD costs and why channels will even let them broadcast SD-only.

Also not excited about paying for others' on-demand viewing if I'm not, which he seemed to imply would happen.

But yeah, not the best interviewer there.

I think all the providers will continue to hemorrhage subscribers as programming costs escalate along with subscription prices. There comes a point when the service is not worth the cost.

We've seen the losses of video subs from all providers recently. The programmers had better take note of that, as Laddy says, at some point people will just stop subscribing, and the revenue will really drop.

I don't think they will have the backbone to haul all the traffic like AT&T or Comcast. Satellite and/or 4G just don't have the capacity of fiber optic networks.

Dish will also be at a cost disadvantage in that they will have to maintain dual delivery networks, both a terrestrial and a satellite while all Comcast or AT&T have is a single network to deliver three services. Dish can't abandon satellite delivery of its video programming as many of its current subs are off the grid so to speak and have satellite as it is the only way to receive broadband video services.

Video services are not that that profitable. To much competition and the programming suppliers are skimming off the cream. The reduced profitability of video broadband is why Time Warner announced this week that they are going to concentrate on the data side of their business.

Believe it or not DISH / Echostar has the largest Fiber Optic Network in the United States.

Believe it or not DISH / Echostar has the largest Fiber Optic Network in the United States.

Please elaborate.

Please elaborate.

well, out of all of the companies in the United States that have fiber optic Networks, Dish/Echo have put together enough fiber optics to have the largest network of all those companies! :neener :D ;)
WE'RE #1! WE'RE #1!

I am hearing rumors through a third party that is getting their info from Wildblue & Hughesnet reps directly tied to this persons business. They're saying big things about satellite internet becoming a major competitor in the internet world. 12 meg speeds that will 100% handle voip & online gaming without lag. BS or fact, who knows, time will tell. I personally don't believe Dish would have purchased Hughes if they did not have a viable plan and future business model. The satellite industry is boring & dead right now. There needs to be some serious breakthroughs in technology & the way services are delivered. The only thing I fear is 1 company having the market cornered & us the end consumer having to pay whatever they feel like charging us.

"12 meg speeds that will 100% handle voip & online gaming without lag"

Yeah on a clear day you can see forever however on a cloudy day...

Physics says you can't not have lag on a satellite connection. The round trip earth-orbit-earth bounce alone (23,000 miles x4) puts over 500mS into the equation. Then whatever it takes once it's into the wireline (could be 50 or 500mS or more in total), depending on the route and traffic. Sorry, that claim is just a flat out lie.

Physics says you can't not have lag on a satellite connection. Your double negative confused me.

K.. It may not be proper grammar but I thought it was pretty clear what its meaning is.

Your double negative confused me.

It is not truly a double negative. It is a redundancy. Can't = can not. The second not simply doesn't need to be there... ;)

The problem with programming high cost is that consumers are never satisfied with one level of channels. The minute a new channel is announced you see this board with questions when it is going to be available. Look at the local channels sports. I live in ny and do not miss Yes, Sny or Mlb. I am a baseball fan. But how much baseaball can I watch over a baseball season. I can to the conclusion that I had enough baseaball with espn or fox or tbs. And you know what I dont watch those channels very much. There is enough media out there besides tv where I can get all the information I need. We get played by the programmers into paying for channels we do not watch. There is a bunch of channels that I wish I could drop and save money. The current structure makes it impossible. It is a supply and demand problem. As long as we keep asking for useless channels, we will keep paying more and more. I wish that the gov and look how big of a scam this is. Starting with hollywood.

Sent from my LG-P999 using SatelliteGuys

Please elaborate.

Yep, I find it hard to believe they have a larger Fiber Optic Network than Verizon/Verzon Wireless...expecially when you incluce fiber-to-the-home service for 4+ million FiOS customers.

It is not truly a double negative. It is a redundancy. Can't = can not. The second not simply doesn't need to be there... ;)

Read it without the second not and it read that you can not have a lag. Should read you will have a lag.

Yep, I find it hard to believe they have a larger Fiber Optic Network than Verizon/Verzon Wireless...expecially when you incluce fiber-to-the-home service for 4+ million FiOS customers.

I was not doubting it, just wanting to know more about the what, where, etc.

Your double negative confused me.


It is not truly a double negative. It is a redundancy. Can't = can not. The second not simply doesn't need to be there... ;)


Read it without the second not and it read that you can not have a lag. Should read you will have a lag.

Give the guy a break, English may just be his 2nd language. :)

Even if there is lag, I think there would be a big market out there for data as fast as 5-15 MB down if they can be competitive with DSL / Cable and not have such a strict FAP. Most download and do not upload and many do not use VoIP and do not game. I bet half the market would be available. They need much more solid speeds than what they have now without the strict FAP to become true DSL / Cable competition.

The problem with programming high cost is that consumers are never satisfied with one level of channels. The minute a new channel is announced you see this board with questions when it is going to be available. Look at the local channels sports. I live in ny and do not miss Yes, Sny or Mlb. I am a baseball fan. But how much baseaball can I watch over a baseball season. I can to the conclusion that I had enough baseaball with espn or fox or tbs. And you know what I dont watch those channels very much. There is enough media out there besides tv where I can get all the information I need. We get played by the programmers into paying for channels we do not watch. There is a bunch of channels that I wish I could drop and save money. The current structure makes it impossible. It is a supply and demand problem. As long as we keep asking for useless channels, we will keep paying more and more. I wish that the gov and look how big of a scam this is. Starting with hollywood.

Sent from my LG-P999 using SatelliteGuys



I agree, there is too many useless channels that we pay for. I sub to the top 250 only because it has 1 of the 1/2 dozen channels I watch, if that channel was in the top 150 I would be subbing to that package and be saving 20.00 a month. As a SD viewer ( I have no real use for HD even though I have a HD TV) I know that I am paying higher premiums because Dish has to pass the higher HD programming costs on to me. TV unlike so many other people is not all that important in my life.

I agree, there is too many useless channels that we pay for. I sub to the top 250 only because it has 1 of the 1/2 dozen channels I watch, if that channel was in the top 150 I would be subbing to that package and be saving 20.00 a month. As a SD viewer ( I have no real use for HD even though I have a HD TV) I know that I am paying higher premiums because Dish has to pass the higher HD programming costs on to me. TV unlike so many other people is not all that important in my life.
HD programming doesn't cost anymore than the SD. Except when you get greed mongers like Disney in there that want payment twice for the same channel. 1 payment for SD & 1 for HD.

Yep, I find it hard to believe they have a larger Fiber Optic Network than Verizon/Verzon Wireless...expecially when you incluce fiber-to-the-home service for 4+ million FiOS customers.

Almost all the LIL is carried on their network from the receive point to their main uplink sites. I've worked in TV stations that housed the fiber out going to providers, AT&T,& Directv,. The last station I worked at the competition down the street was the hub of D*, E*, and the locals cable co's. The station I worked at had the AT&T fiber link for their hub. BTW want to see a TV station newsroom freak out: cut the fiber to the area.

Give the guy a break, English may just be his 2nd language. :)

No, they just can't comprehend English.

How about this.. There is NO way to NOT have lag on a satellite connection, because each request has to travel 93,000 miles just in satellite links. At the speed of light (186,000 miles per second), that is 500mS right there, and that's not even counting any processing time at each point in the link (modem > transmitter > satellite > ground station > backbone and back), so realistically you have to figure 750-1000mS into each request. And again, you then have to add the actual wireline ping time.

I've used 2 way satellite internet before, and the lag is absolutely obnoxious on a good day.

Maybe a company will provide a service via IPTV or FTA and have optional pay channels for a low price that does not force the company to buy a bunch of other sucky channels that they own to get the good channel. Maybe a decent enough package can be created as a result. This would also allow for ala carte although I am sure whichever provider would need a minimum to make it worthwhile and may have something like what Dish Network had such as DishPix where you select so many channels for an x amount per month.

A la carte will never be economically feasible. Ever. For the provider or the consumer. Just look at Hits2Home on C-band. By the time you build yourself a halfway decent package, you're already at or above the same price as you would be on D* or E*, but with far less channels. And of course there's the channels that programmers will insist on you getting if you want one of theirs.. Like if you have kids and you want Nickelodeon, they're going to ram all of the MTV networks down your throat. SOME channels (as in 16 of them) are available on H2H a la carte for $6, $8, or $10 per channel per month.. How is that worthwhile?

So yeah, it'll never work out. We're always going to be stuck with niche channels built into our packages.