Dish CEO Hints at Possibly Dropping ALL RSNs

[HanoverPretzel]

Charlie Ergen:

"there is a strategy potentially out there for one video provider not to carry regional sports, and I think there might be some short-term pain, but they (would) probably do pretty well long-term.”

Source: Dish CEO: Netflix Has an ‘Insurmountable’ Lead in Streaming: Online Video News «

I don't agree. In addition to all the folks like me for whom regional sports are the bread and butter of cable/satellite, you've got a lot of people who want to see the occasional game when the mood strikes or when it's a topic of conversation around the water cooler, a lot of people in a family unit or roommate situation who may not be interested in sports themselves but have someone living with them who is, a lot of people who will want the game available for friends or house guests, and so on and so forth. Regional sports I think were the major driver of cable adoption in the first place in this country and there would be a lot of people who without live sports in place would drop pay television entirely.

In fact, in the age of Netflix, sports only becomes more important -- people have cheaper more convenient options with more selection than cable/satellite when it comes to movies, but with live sports, if you want a legal reliable way to see your team play, you've got to have a cable or satellite package. If indeed cable and satellite television are on their way to becoming less prevalent or even disappearing one day, it seems to me that sports is going to be the main thing staving that off for a few extra years. If you're a television provider who, as Ergen has hinted at, seems to feel like television providers are on their way out eventually, and yet are invested in that area and feel there is still money to be made, sports is where that money is, because it's the last thing that'll keep people tied to you.

Also, I hope this isn't the strategy he embarks upon with Dish, because in addition to the financial losses he'd incur with it (Which are really his own thing and not my concern as a customer), it's really not fair to people like me who subscribed to the service with the expectation of seeing our favorite teams play. At the very least, if this is the direction he's headed in with all these rsn contract disputes, and it's an intentional strategy, he should offer his subscribers who are sports fans an opportunity to shake hands and depart as their rsns disappear -- without an early termination or penalty fee. If people sign up for something to view their local teams, they shouldn't be stuck footing the bill and not getting to see those teams.

 

[Claude Greiner]

Yea, maybe to the people who care only about cost.

I can live without ESPN, but I need the regional networks for baseball.

 

[DishSubLA]

It's a Charlie trail balloon, but also one way he thinks he can finally get a handle on costs and save a ton of money. However, I don't think Charlie was talking about today, I think he was referring to when cable, sat, etc. is going to have to re-align itself in a world where the viewer is going to get his RSN via internet or OTT boxes, especially as RSN's come under more local ownership rather than by just Fox, for the most part. Now, Verizon will launch an RSN featuring the Lakers. Doooh! Another content owner wanting MORE money. It seems to never end, and the cable and sat offerings in the future may be leaner, as will the companies, and they will lose subs at first but stabilize. I think Charlie, once again, has much better view of the future than any of his competitors, and from his view, he probably bought Blockbuster just in time. It puts him the OTT game. Perhaps one can subscribe to the RSN via Blockbuster rather than the Dish service? Who knows how he sees this particular future.

Finally, you have to consider how large and relevant Dish Network is and still not having NFL ST, MLB IE. The vast majority of subs don't want that. A service could do well offering no RSN's, but it would be smaller, but probably more profitable as they don't have to keep throwing money the RSN's. Just look at how good the profits have been for Dish while it was losing subscribers and gaining not many as of late, and the fee hikes had their effect long ago and no longer drive the increased profits as they had. It costs a bundle to get a new sub, and the lesson is there is a MIDDLE GROUND, not a mad dash to getting the most subscribers at any cost, often too high of a cost when they can just leave for the next guy tomorrow and the next after that, and the next after that.

 

[piranesi]

This is simply the right thing to say from someone who knows he's going to be locked in eternal negotiations with dozens of overpriced RSNs. Much better than saying "Of course we need them, we would die without them."

It may or may not be true that a provider could just dump them, but even if it's not true...it's the right thing to say.

 

[satjay]

I would think that with the National HD Dish has I would think that if RSN's were to be moved to a "sports tier" and in full time HD, that would make them more attractive to other customers, though in reading the article even if it a negoating tatic, it would read that they would like to be the no RSN provider. If that would be the case package prices would decrease right? or is there more to that

 

[cosmo_kramer]

I would think that with the National HD Dish has I would think that if RSN's were to be moved to a "sports tier" and in full time HD, that would make them more attractive to other customers, though in reading the article even if it a negoating tatic, it would read that they would like to be the no RSN provider. If that would be the case package prices would decrease right? or is there more to that

When was the last time package prices went down?? Are NY subs paying less now that they were without 2 RSNs they used to have??

 

[AZ.]

Thats fine...but let us, the end user break or contracts just like he is alowed to do.....This one sided capataliziam is totaly out of control!!!!!....I signed so I could get my RSN, you drop them,I drop you...fair is fair

 

[satjay]

When was the last time package prices went down?? Are NY subs paying less now that they were without 2 RSNs they used to have??

Thats what I was thinking, and its not just Dish. Cant recall to many times my bill has gone down if a channel has left

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

"there is a strategy potentially out there for one video provider not to carry regional sports, and I think there might be some short-term pain, but they (would) probably do pretty well long-term.”

I don't see him saying DISH Network is dropping all RSN's.

However he is correct look at how successful Netflix and Hulu is with no sports

 

[VinceT3]

He's saying soon you'll have the Dish HD & Streaming packages and your DirecTV RSN package.

 

[AntiMoz]

The content via Internet model totally neglects the challenges present within rural and near suburban America with respect to the lack of available, affordable and reliable high speed Internet services. At some point, the Leagues and RSN's will have to relax their archaic blackout rules and charge reasonable prices to the infrastructure providers (Dish, DirecTV, pick your cable company) that carry their product. There has to be an alternative provided to counter their insistence that their product has to be carried as part of a base package to maximize revenue. Let me buy CI, MLB, from whatever provider I choose without having to worry about freakin blackout rules and make the League based packages available to all providers under anti-trust laws. Right now we are all losing here in New York...especially those of us (me) who have NO other alternatives other than DN for service.

I'll keep dreaming...........the rant continues.

 

[Mr Tony]

When was the last time package prices went down?? Are NY subs paying less now that they were without 2 RSNs they used to have??

actually its 3 (MSG, MSG+, SNY)

 

[redelephants]

I don't see him saying DISH Network is dropping all RSN's.

However he is correct look at how successful Netflix and Hulu is with no sports

Scott, they are successful due to other providers carrying sports programming. I mean if DISH wants to sell me a streaming package with no sports for 8 dollars monthly I'm all for it but to compare Netflix/Hulu to DISH is apples and oranges.

 

[JosephB]

Why not use the multitude of spots for RSNs? If I understand, part of the thing with RSNs on DISH is that people are upset that they're not in HD all the time and that is due to bandwidth. I don't think RSNs probably cost all that much, so it's probably a bandwidth issue. If the consideration is dropping RSNs completely, why not split the difference and drop RSNs nationally (just like cable..they don't have out of market RSNs) and put HD RSNs full time on spots. Or, in markets where there aren't HD locals (are there any?) just put them up in SD on spots. IIRC, DISH has or will have locals in all markets either now or at some point very soon. So, however they're delivering those locals, put the RSNs on there too.

 

[cosmo_kramer]

Why not use the multitude of spots for RSNs? If I understand, part of the thing with RSNs on DISH is that people are upset that they're not in HD all the time and that is due to bandwidth. I don't think RSNs probably cost all that much, so it's probably a bandwidth issue. If the consideration is dropping RSNs completely, why not split the difference and drop RSNs nationally (just like cable..they don't have out of market RSNs) and put HD RSNs full time on spots. Or, in markets where there aren't HD locals (are there any?) just put them up in SD on spots. IIRC, DISH has or will have locals in all markets either now or at some point very soon. So, however they're delivering those locals, put the RSNs on there too.

RSNs are among the most expensive channels, averaging around $2.50/month per sub....

 

[Arse69]

As a DISH retailer he better give me a 12 to 24 month heads up if hes planning on dropping our RSNs. He will loose 2/3rds of his New England customers if the Redsox, Bruins and Celtics disapear from DISH network.

 

[goaliebob99]

I don't see him saying DISH Network is dropping all RSN's.

However he is correct look at how successful Netflix and Hulu is with no sports

You can say the same for ESPN3! Charlie is wrong on this one.. I think this is his way of thumbing at us whom want full time HD RSN's. I for one know that I will never be a dish network costumer again as long as sports isn't available in HD full time. If sports is so much of a pain to charlie... Drop every dam single sports channel on your system. Lets see how well you do without ESPN and RSN's. I know why charlie is doing this. Its because he's to damm cheap to pay the price or too lazy to negotiate for a lower price.

 

[Arse69]

I think a better plan would let a alacarte service start evolving. All programmers who would want to be a part of it could be available at alacarte pricing. Granted some of the bigger channels might not want to participate at first, but if they could get more money they may think differently. Customers are continuely asking for this option. Customers could choose their channels online eliminating a lot of cost for DISH. I remember the C-band days of alarcarte offerings, that worked quite well.

 

[DustoMan]

I think you are all jumping the gun on this. He's not saying that this is something he is going to do, but a statement that let's us know what his thought process is at this moment in time. Obviously RSNs are a thorn in his side, and honestly the way those company's act I can see why. You are all always quick to point out that Charlie is cheap and why won't he just pay what the providers are asking for? If his numbers are correct, and I don't know why they wouldn't be because he of all people would know what his subscribers watch. Having so much time, money, and energy for something that only 15% of your total subscribers watch. There comes a point where you say it's just not worth it anymore. I mean come on, we are talking about channels and just arbitrarily decide that some games that weren't covered on the channel last year are not covered by the initial fee you charged the customer for the current year. So instead of just absorbing them into your current offerings and just raise the overall cost. You say that those games are now "extra", and basically extort the customer into paying for them because of the uproar caused by their subscribers complaining that they are missing games that they would have been watching on another channel the year prior.

Now I understand that my opinion is biased because I don't watch anything on RSNs at all and if it means that I can save a buck by not having them on the service then I'm all for it. But I understand that there are people here that would be upset by this change and would walk and I get that.

 

[Lt Disher]

I know why charlie is doing this. Its because he's to damm cheap to pay the price or too lazy to negotiate for a lower price.

Perhaps he is cheap, but I don't think you can say he is too lazy to negotiate for a lower price. He is taking channels off the air while he is negotiating for a lower price. That is clearly not a 'lazy' thing to do. The lazy thing would be to just give in to the demands of the content providers and pay whatever is asked.