Charlie is just mad that Fox has him tied up in court over autohop and sling technology and he is acting like a little kid that didnt get his way because Fox isnt agreeing to a settlement like some of the other networks did.
Another DISH Football Fight
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 116
- Views 8K
This thread is not about Fox - that is another issue in another thread. It's about the Big 10 Network and the expansion of the Big 10 into New Jersey and Maryland with the addition of Rutgers and Maryland. The conference's expansion folks just forgot to check w/Dish when they unilaterally expanded. The expansion, by itself, just brought a ton of folks into the "in market" and thus drove up Dish's cost. It's really like your child committing about 20 Million for you - yea, you stand back and wonder what just happened. I get it.
The thing is the entire model is being destroyed by incredible greed:
1. Sports channels cost a TON, yet they want carriage in the lowest package. Look at the situation across the nation. Dish has give up or otherwise refuses to carry many (if not most?) RSNs now. The ones they do carry are holdovers from many years ago. When was the last time a new one was even added?
2. Retransmission of local broadcast channels. Local "free" channels now want a huge piece of the pie. They want to be compensated like cable channels.
3. Speed is dumped and rebranded as FS1. Was 23 cents a sub, now Fox wants about a $1 a sub per month; that's a huge increase.
Where does this stop? Everyone wants more money and there is only so much to go around. No channel it seems is negotiated seperately, but instead packaged with the others. Want Fox News, have to buy FX and all these other channels. Want ESPN, have to carry SEC and all these Disney channels.
This whole model is on the verge of collapse. There is a movement towards "Local Choice" legislation whereby you get to pick your local channels and the local channels get 100% of the fees. They negotiate with you and you elect to have it or not. Of course, local channels are opposed. This will enable us to negotiate directly with the local channel and let them go fly a kite if they want too much. The entire broadcast industry is opposed to this - because if it works with local channels then, in time, it will work with pay providers....and they don't like it.
We'll see where this all goes.
The thing is the entire model is being destroyed by incredible greed:
1. Sports channels cost a TON, yet they want carriage in the lowest package. Look at the situation across the nation. Dish has give up or otherwise refuses to carry many (if not most?) RSNs now. The ones they do carry are holdovers from many years ago. When was the last time a new one was even added?
2. Retransmission of local broadcast channels. Local "free" channels now want a huge piece of the pie. They want to be compensated like cable channels.
3. Speed is dumped and rebranded as FS1. Was 23 cents a sub, now Fox wants about a $1 a sub per month; that's a huge increase.
Where does this stop? Everyone wants more money and there is only so much to go around. No channel it seems is negotiated seperately, but instead packaged with the others. Want Fox News, have to buy FX and all these other channels. Want ESPN, have to carry SEC and all these Disney channels.
This whole model is on the verge of collapse. There is a movement towards "Local Choice" legislation whereby you get to pick your local channels and the local channels get 100% of the fees. They negotiate with you and you elect to have it or not. Of course, local channels are opposed. This will enable us to negotiate directly with the local channel and let them go fly a kite if they want too much. The entire broadcast industry is opposed to this - because if it works with local channels then, in time, it will work with pay providers....and they don't like it.
We'll see where this all goes.
How can you blame this on Dish(Charlie)? If you know well that Fox does whatever they can to get the upper hand
In other words If you can't beat them(in court) Charge them for our troubles.
In other words If you can't beat them(in court) Charge them for our troubles.
I have to agree. BTN is treated as a RSN in the Big 10 states. The reason Dish is seeing an increase is probably not because BTN is asking for more money per subscriber in the middle of a contract. It's because New Jersey is now a Big 10 state. If Dish treats it the same way they treat all the other Big 10 States that means they have to add BTN for everyone who lives in New Jersey with AT120+ and higher instead of just Multi-sport customers.
This means more Dish subscribers suddenly have BTN. More subscribers means Dish has to pay BTN more money. As long as BTN isn't charging Dish more money per subscriber in New Jersey than they are in Michigan I don't have a problem with that.
I also think this is a very good point. Dish customers in New Jersey get no RSNs even though they pay for them. They pay the same rates as Dish customers living in states with multiple RSNs, yet they get nothing. A portion of their bill every month goes to nonexistent RSNs. I think it's only fair that Dish gives them access to the RSN they actually do carry(BTN).
yep. we are making plans to move one.
we have less equipment and a lower package, but pay almost $30 more than just a few years ago.
Once again the bubble is going to pop at some point, pay tv whether sports or regular programming has gotten way out of hand, tv is a luxury but it will soon be a luxury many won't be able to afford.All this greed is doing is driving more folks to cord cut, and torrents.
Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!
Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!
Agreed. It caused me to cut the cord. However, I don't think that withholding the one RSN Dish carries from residents of New Jersey is the right place to save some money when they are paying for RSNs just like everyone else.
I don't think viewers are upset with wanting to push back against escalating sports programming costs; its the method of the two providers in doing it. Charlie Ergen seems to turn every fee dispute into Armageddon, angering the program providers and his subscribers. DirecTV has its programming disputes as well, but seems to handle them with more tact.
BTW, if Charlie is holding the line on proramming costs and passing them along to subscribers, as he claims, then why are DISH and DirecTV prices roughly similar for the same service (after the promotional year is up)?
BTW, if Charlie is holding the line on proramming costs and passing them along to subscribers, as he claims, then why are DISH and DirecTV prices roughly similar for the same service (after the promotional year is up)?
prices are roughly similar, because you are only talking pennies that effect the consumer end, but with millions of subs, those pennies turn into millions of dollars on the provider side.
Holy cow. So many Dish apologists on these boards. Like reading Pravda.
So, not to go all conspiracy nuts on this, but now that the Conference Cartels have their own channels, is it in their interest to pluck colleges in different markets to draw up the prime-rate viewers? Why else have Rutgers in the Big Ten?
This is the underlying issue. Dish agreed to a particular prime and non-prime rate for the channel, under the premise that the number of subs in the prime-rate areas was relatively static. BTN then goes out and expands that area into a pretty large market, which greatly increases the number of prime-rate subs. If Dish knew that, they may have originally settled for a lower prime-rate. BTN changed the rules of the game after the fact, not Dish.
This is the underlying issue. Dish agreed to a particular prime and non-prime rate for the channel, under the premise that the number of subs in the prime-rate areas was relatively static. BTN then goes out and expands that area into a pretty large market, which greatly increases the number of prime-rate subs. If Dish knew that, they may have originally settled for a lower prime-rate. BTN changed the rules of the game after the fact, not Dish.
Probably because each new contract sets a generally accepted level for the other providers. Dish's new contract with Disney may set the bar for Directv's Disney deal. And visa versa.
Again, I don't think this is the same. It doesn't sound like they are trying to charge more for the football games than they do to just carry the channel. It sounds like Dish wants to carry BTN as a RSN for people in New Jersey without paying the same rate they pay in all the other Big 10 states.
Dish is calling it a price increase but the reason the price is going up is because there would suddenly be way more BTN subscribers. All the people in New Jersey would now get BTN as an RSN instead of just the few people who pay for Multi-sport. Not because BTN wants more money per subscriber.
Similar threads
Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)
Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)
Latest posts
-
-
T
-
T
-
-
