RSN's Continue to Fall - Dish drops AT&T Sportsnets

I think the lack of RSNs will have a very significant impact for Dish. I’m pretty sure I will drop Dish at some point and that will be the primary reason. YouTube TV just renegotiated with NBC in my area…
 
  • Like
Reactions: AZ.
Because that is not how the market works. The flaw in Dish’s argument is that virtually EVERY channel is “only” watched by a small minority. And?
And?

That counter argument is also flawed. If all the RSNs only charged less than a dollar for their one channel like virtually EVERY channel does, then you'd have a point. A channel that costs 10x more than the average EVERY other channel is the reason for dropping it.
 
So, how long do we wait before we start hassling Dish for a price break for the missing channels? If they're so outrageously expensive (which I'm not doubting), it ought to be worth something off my nearly $150 per month.
 
So, how long do we wait before we start hassling Dish for a price break for the missing channels? If they're so outrageously expensive (which I'm not doubting), it ought to be worth something off my nearly $150 per month.

Give ‘em a call. Maybe they’ll give you some sort of monthly credit or something. Can’t hurt….


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
And?

That counter argument is also flawed. If all the RSNs only charged less than a dollar for their one channel like virtually EVERY channel does, then you'd have a point. A channel that costs 10x more than the average EVERY other channel is the reason for dropping it.\

They charge what they charge. Content cost money.

As I said, if you can get the networks and diginets OTA, the justification for Dish over something like Pluto is hard to see. Both are just content free remixes of rerun channels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: charlesrshell
I wouldn't have minded if the Regional Action Pack went up to $20/month (or even $30) to keep the channels on, but the RSN owners would have nothing to do with that. If the customers had a choice to pay the real cost of those channels, they would lose even more revenue and viewership than not having the channel available on a particular provider.

It isn't about how much they charge, it's about how they extort it from everyone. Nickel and dime extortion is one thing, but when the extortion is in the range of 10-20x higher than other channels, then it's an issue. The moneybags sports leagues are overbloated and the welfare pricing model is unsustainable.
 
Last edited:
This is sending a message to Sinclair, for their RSN, if Dish agreed to renew or to the demands of AT&T + Roots then Sinclair could argue for their case, but I agree with Charlie that RSN's need to be Al La Carte
Just because the networks pay Sports League's big $$$ for the broadcast rights to games, which in effect helps pay for sports teams, so in essence what it is, is TV subscribers subsidizing Pro Sports Teams, even if they never watch a game
So if RSN's want Cable & Satellite Co's to carry their channels it's going to have to be by Al La Carte.
 
  • Like
Reactions: charlesrshell
ALC is, of course, the most anti-consumer idea in this industry, ever. Under such a scheme, only a handful of channels would even exist for the customer to pick from, as the costs of production of just about anything would exceed what they could earn under such a bad idea.

Rather, the future seems pretty clear. Those that want content will look to DirecTV, or a robust cable company or pay streamer. Others will go the route of original programming via different combinations of Netflix, HBO Max, etc. People that just want TV to rattle around in the background will just get by with OTA and things like Pluto and STIRR. The outfit I really cannot see a future for is a pay service that has a content mix not much distinguishable from Pluto + an antenna.
 
ALC is, of course, the most anti-consumer idea in this industry, ever. Under such a scheme, only a handful of channels would even exist for the customer to pick from, as the costs of production of just about anything would exceed what they could earn under such a bad idea.

Rather, the future seems pretty clear. Those that want content will look to DirecTV, or a robust cable company or pay streamer. Others will go the route of original programming via different combinations of Netflix, HBO Max, etc. People that just want TV to rattle around in the background will just get by with OTA and things like Pluto and STIRR. The outfit I really cannot see a future for is a pay service that has a content mix not much distinguishable from Pluto + an antenna.
No
There would be a line item delivery charge( standard)
Then each channel would be charged separately

So dish would charge $100 delivery charge
Then channels would be on top if that

You would get fewer channels but pay more

Shhh dont give charlie ideas
 
  • Like
Reactions: charlesrshell
I can't understand why these channels would rather be getting NO money than SOME money. Why don't their shareholders remove the people making such imbecilic and deranged decisions?
I will start by saying that I have no direct knowledge of the ATT/Dish contract. However, it is EXTREMELY common in this industry for a MFN (Most Favored Nations) clause to exist. So, if ATT agrees to accept "some" money from Dish that is less than what others are paying them, then they can only collect that amount from the other distributors as well. So by taking a low amount of money from Dish for these channels, they may actually lose more money from the other distributors than they gain by doing the deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: charlesrshell
They are greedy corporations, who hope that the standoff will result in them getting their insane amounts of money paid monthly by all subscribers, in order for a few subscribers to watch the RSNs. DISH is right to say Hell No! to this. These type of tactics, along with Local stations extorting more and more money each time their contracts come up, is why traditional tv like cable and satellite are on the decline and it will prove to be the undoing of the entire industry. Ala cart is the only way this will be rectified. Canada is now mandating ala cart as law in their country and the USA needs to follow suit. But sadly, I just see more and more subscribers leaving the traditional cable/satellite model due to the delays in fixing these situations. They will have cooked the "golden goose" due to their greed.
Ala Carte would cost WAY more than a typical package ...
Your not going to be able to order just 5-10 channels, it will have to be thier package of Ala Carte channels, then your right back to what you have with cable or Sat.
 
I will start by saying that I have no direct knowledge of the ATT/Dish contract. However, it is EXTREMELY common in this industry for a MFN (Most Favored Nations) clause to exist. So, if ATT agrees to accept "some" money from Dish that is less than what others are paying them, then they can only collect that amount from the other distributors as well. So by taking a low amount of money from Dish for these channels, they may actually lose more money from the other distributors than they gain by doing the deal.
This sounds highly unlikely. Such contract terms would be monopolistic and possibly illegal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: charlesrshell
This sounds highly unlikely. Such contract terms would be monopolistic and possibly illegal.
Ha, OK. I can assure with 100% certainty that these clauses exist in the television distribution business. There is nothing monopolistic nor illegal about it. All they are saying is, if you give someone else a better deal, we want it too. It is actually anti-monopolistic.
 
A “monopoly” as the term is used in American law, is a single supplier controlling all, or most all, of the supply of a particular product.

A “MFN” clause is actually pro-consumer and has absolutely nothing to do with monopolistic practices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lakebum431
ALC is, of course, the most anti-consumer idea in this industry, ever. Under such a scheme, only a handful of channels would even exist for the customer to pick from, as the costs of production of just about anything would exceed what they could earn under such a bad idea.

Rather, the future seems pretty clear. Those that want content will look to DirecTV, or a robust cable company or pay streamer. Others will go the route of original programming via different combinations of Netflix, HBO Max, etc. People that just want TV to rattle around in the background will just get by with OTA and things like Pluto and STIRR. The outfit I really cannot see a future for is a pay service that has a content mix not much distinguishable from Pluto + an antenna.

Giving consumers the choice to buy what they want in a manner that they control is anti-consumer????
 
I was pleased last year when the Portland Trailblazers ended there contract with Comcast for broadcast of their games.
They were moving over to RootNW.
But when the preseason games began, found out that Dish now no longer carries RootNW.
 
Giving consumers the choice to buy what they want in a manner that they control is anti-consumer????
Yes. Because you make the mistake that everyone who thinks ALC is an answer makes. You assume that the content you want would be there for the buying.

It would not. Under ALC the consumer would have, at best, maybe 20 channels to choose from. Simple math. The few cents one customer who loves channel B pays for channel A, but never watches, covers part of the cost of there being a channel A in the first place, just as are the few cents the channel A loving customer pays for channel B, which she never watches. Simplified, but you get the idea. Without the wonderful system of packages, the robust content that is modern DBS/cable simply would not exist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: paulman182
Yes. Because you make the mistake that everyone who thinks ALC is an answer makes. You assume that the content you want would be there for the buying.

It would not. Under ALC the consumer would have, at best, maybe 20 channels to choose from. Simple math. The few cents one customer who loves channel B pays for channel A, but never watches, covers part of the cost of there being a channel A in the first place, just as are the few cents the channel A loving customer pays for channel B, which she never watches. Simplified, but you get the idea. Without the wonderful system of packages, the robust content that is modern DBS/cable simply would not exist.
Five channels from one company rotating the same content is robust? I think paying for one channel instead of five would be better in the long run for consumers. Who cares if weak channels go away. Good content would still find a way to be broadcast. Besides, we already have Ala Carte. Media companies each having their own streaming service is a form of this. Want to watch Viacom/CBS content, get Paramount +, want Warner content, get HBO Max, etc. Drop, add, mix and match. This choice is one reason why cable/sat is dying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim S.

Proper method to clean Dish

Returning dish equipment

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 2)

Latest posts