CNN and HLN gone/ Dish-Turner Dispute - Now Back 11/21

[MikeD-C05]

Doubtful over time.

If ESPN (or any channel) had to manage both ends of the spectrum (i.e. the number of subs and paying for the content) then contract pricing would adjust. There is no way ESPN or any network can pay high inflated costs if customers can opt out of paying it. These deals only work if the costs can be successfully spread across 100M customers AND each of those customers is forced to buy in.

Studies show a certain number of ESPN customers would opt out if they had a choice. Let's just say 33% would opt out? Under many of the shortsighted thinking, costs would go up across the remaining subscribers. That's unlikely. What is more likely is that ESPN pares back it contract and covers less games and pays less for the games. No way ESPN is going to gamble and overpay NBA on subs it does not have and cannot guarantee. Overall it means less games on television because no one is able to pay for them at the rates that they want. So back to local TV and broadcast TV.

But should this happen it would have a ripple effect....NBA revenue would decrease....thus player contracts would have to decrease.

You guys have to look at the economic model and how any change would shake out. It is quite complex, but for each customer than can opt out, that means less overall ability to spread the cost, less overall ability to spread the cost means raising rates. For every rate increase that will lose an additional x number of subs.....so those costs have to be repread.

In reality, the cost model needs to be updated......ordinary consumers can no longer afford all of this.

I agree. Sports channels like Espn will be the death of the current sat/cable model we have used for the last 40 years. They are simply to high and they force everyone to sub to a pack with Espn in them - except the Welcome pack. Millennials have never subbed to cable or satellite and the yearly price hikes are forcing more and more of the current subs to shave the cord or cut it entirely. Of course the core group of older subs to cable and satellite are literally dieing out day by day each year. This leaves the current model in jeopardy and losing more and more subs at the same time, as they hike the price more and more, to make up for the lost revenue. Something has to give or the whole model will collapse. If this happens all the companies, DISH ,DIRECTV,Cable companies , including the content providers themselves, will have to do something like ala cart to attract anyone to their service. The average customer can't afford these prices much longer.

 

[bigjohnok]

I agree. Sports channels like Espn will be the death of the current sat/cable model we have used for the last 40 years. They are simply to high and they force everyone to sub to a pack with Espn in them - except the Welcome pack. Millennials have never subbed to cable or satellite and the yearly price hikes are forcing more and more of the current subs to shave the cord or cut it entirely. Of course the core group of older subs to cable and satellite are literally dieing out day by day each year. This leaves the current model in jeopardy and losing more and more subs at the same time, as they hike the price more and more, to make up for the lost revenue. Something has to give or the whole model will collapse. If this happens all the companies, DISH ,DIRECTV,Cable companies , including the content providers themselves, will have to do something like ala cart to attract anyone to their service. The average customer can't afford these prices much longer.

I cut the cord a few years ago over that AMC fiasco then I went to work for Dish a little over a year ago and got "free" programming well I still pay equipment fee's and taxes but its like $50 a month for a 4 room hopper super joey/joey set up with the every channel that Dish carries.

When my employment ends with Dish the Hopper while a awesome snazzy system will be pulled out and sent back.
If you have a high speed internet connection there is enough options out there to be able to stream what I want to watch.

 

[slick1ru2]

Well, other media companies gladly allow streaming rights along with the customers cable or sat subscription and even access via the MVPD's website. That isn't the issue. The issue is HOW MUCH Turner wants for those rights or HOW MUCH Dish is willing to pay for them. The money may be moving to a different place or require a different model, but it is still about money. Turner nor any other media company, in the end, really don't care how it affects the number of eyes via streaming or anywhere else if the MVPD is paying more to them in exchange. Whether the money comes in big pile via adverting or carriage rights, they really don't care. This is why Les Moonvies is pushing for not only his O&O', but all CBS affiliates focus on carriage rights for increasing revenue because advertising revenue has its limits, espeically as far as a network is concerned, but carriage rights are infinate--according to Les--and so he doesn't care from which pipe his mountains of come in to CBS, just so long as one of those pipes providing it. In other words, Les really views CBS TV Network equivalent to pay channels like USA, etc. and that is where the really big money is at with total disregard to the CBS legacy as an advertising having been providing the prime revenue.

All I'm saying is CNN makes $1 million a month off their website. I don't think they want to lose that revenue by decreasing visits to their webpage. By comparison, CBSnews.com makes $50k/month, CBS.com $70k.

 

[356B]

Any news on getting CNN back?

 

[slick1ru2]

The free month of Cinemax and Showtime they are now offering cuts off automatically.

 

[beandaddy]

Why replace CNN with MSNBC?
I don't watch either much, MSNBC I never watch.
Why not bring down something from a higher tier, like blaze?

Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!

 

[Yespage]

Why replace CNN with MSNBC?
I don't watch either much, MSNBC I never watch.
Why not bring down something from a higher tier, like blaze?

Well Newsmax is already available for everyone. And it is likely that Fox News is part of the package as well. How many more right-wing sources do you need?

 

[beandaddy]

But why MSNBC TWICE. No one watches it once. It's a failed formula.

Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!

 

[Yespage]

But why MSNBC TWICE. No one watches it once. It's a failed formula.

Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!

It is what counts as a news channel in the US these days. Asking for Blaze instead is a bit ridiculous. The standard for a news channel hasn't dropped that low yet.

 

[beandaddy]

But TWICE? Why not non - history channel twice?
Show us ridiculous outtakes from yesterday's msnbc? I'm not claiming anything is news. It's infotainment. They are all in the same genre, and I'm saying MSNBC getting two channels is an insult to dish customers.
Give us something we don't have to replace something someone took away.
I'm not going down any political rabbit holes, I'm talking TV.

Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!

 

[Scherrman]

Please explain in your own words so the rest of us can understand how this intricate process works.

I can't because I would be one of the members that does not know how it all works perfectly. I do have more knowledge than the average person though.

I wasn't trying to come off as a person that knows how it all works. I apologize if I did.

 

[Yespage]

Give us something we don't have to replace something someone took away.

I now understand that point you are making. MSNBC is generally available across the board, but there is no other actual news channel available, except Al Jazazera maybe.

 

[slick1ru2]

I know we automatically go to 200 for CNN. They put MSNBC as a holder, I imagine. And I also imagine if they put Fox News in instead, there would be an uproar.

 

[beandaddy]

I go back to my original recommended place holder, blaze which is from a higher tier, both msnbc and blaze are just opinion shows.
If they are wanting to keep it all in the family, then cnn, msnbc, Al jazerra and RT are interchangeable among cable channels... I'm probably forgetting some in that group.
You could say fnc, blaze and newsmax as the balance - if you are not very good at math.

Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!

 

[slick1ru2]

I go back to my original recommended place holder, blaze which is from a higher tier, both msnbc and blaze are just opinion shows.
If they are wanting to keep it all in the family, then cnn, msnbc, Al jazerra and RT are interchangeable among cable channels... I'm probably forgetting some in that group.
You could say fnc, blaze and newsmax as the balance - if you are not very good at math.

Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!

MSNBC has live coverage of breaking news like CNN and Fox.

 

[Tampa8]

The Blaze is not a suitable replacement for CNN. Of the news channels MSNBC would be the closer to replace it with, though CNN to me is a much better source. I also agree it was done more as a placeholder for those who go to 200 rather than have no programming not meant as an extra channel.

 

[beandaddy]

Msnbc is already there. It is duuplicated. CNN is gone and I'd rather have a variety than a duplicated channel.
The audience for cnn and msnbc is so small as to be insignificant.
I'm not missing anything, but if blaze has changed since I last saw it, I might be enticed to upgrade my service.
No one is clamoring for more msnbc. Not even too much missing cnn, from what I've read.

Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!

 

[ncted]

All I'm saying is CNN makes $1 million a month off their website. I don't think they want to lose that revenue by decreasing visits to their webpage. By comparison, CBSnews.com makes $50k/month, CBS.com $70k.

I'd be disappointed if it is only $1 million a month. I work in the digital news industry, and that seems very low for a site with the amount of traffic cnn.com gets. I know that my company makes roughly $100,000/hr in online revenue during peak traffic. Perhaps you are referring to net income and not revenue?

 

[slick1ru2]

Msnbc is already there. It is duuplicated. CNN is gone and I'd rather have a variety than a duplicated channel.
The audience for cnn and msnbc is so small as to be insignificant.
I'm not missing anything, but if blaze has changed since I last saw it, I might be enticed to upgrade my service.
No one is clamoring for more msnbc. Not even too much missing cnn, from what I've read.

Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!

Its a placeholder because CNN is coming back and regular viewers of MSNBC won't have to find their channel. Its not even HD.

 

[slick1ru2]

I'd be disappointed if it is only $1 million a month. I work in the digital news industry, and that seems very low for a site with the amount of traffic cnn.com gets. I know that my company makes roughly $100,000/hr in online revenue during peak traffic. Perhaps you are referring to net income and not revenue?

Foxnews.com only generates $300k a month.

And its revenue. http://cnn.com.hypestat.com/