DISH and CSNNE Dispute
- Thread starter larrydeans
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 52
- Views 8K
-
WELCOME TO THE NEW SERVER!
If you are seeing this you are on our new server WELCOME HOME!
While the new server is online Scott is still working on the backend including the cachine. But the site is usable while the work is being completes!
Thank you for your patience and again WELCOME HOME!
CLICK THE X IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER OF THE BOX TO DISMISS THIS MESSAGE
And here's the problem with that. It is far more trouble for local Cable to drop the RSN than it is to just raise prices. Thus Charter, who did hold out on SNY for quite sometime finally succumbed to local pressure including from actual government leaders here. They were the only cable company servicing the area. (Still are in some areas) The result? Obviously not just because of now carrying all the RSN's here (4- 5 - that's right 4-5 depending on location) but they cost far far more than DISH. Ditto Direct TV for me. Anyone can simply come to terms. You mention Fios, Fios where available is the most expensive internet of the two places I live, CT and FL.
I see it as choice, there are options from other providers to get all your RSN's in the few places DISH does not carry them all. I don't blame someone for picking a provider who carries any channels they want that another does not have.
In addition, DISH has been around a long time now. If they had not captured more of the NY market, it seems obvious they decided they were not going to even with the most costly RSN's in the U.S. Keep in mind, citing a national channel such as ESPN has nothing to do with local RSNs, nothing at all. ESPN does get good viewership, dropping them affects how many of 14 million households watch it on DISH, dropping CSNNE affects how many households of approx 4 million that CSNNE is in that also has DISH, and then how man of even that amount watch it.
It still amazes me that DISH won't make deals with some of the largest TV market RSNs in the country. NYC, Boston, LA, Houston, Philly. I read these quarterly reports about how they are losing subscribers yet they keep themselves out of the largest sports markets in the US.
In New York State, DirecTv charges an extra $3.63 fee for RSNs and you get MSG, YES and SNY. That's reasonable, IMO. I like DISH but as the Sabres get better, it will be hard not to switch to DirecTv or even back to TWC. My hope is that Terry Pegula starts his own sports network as has been rumored when the MSG contract expires in 2017, and that DISH will pick it up.
Sports Time Ohio is on DISH.
It needs to be remembered that the Celtics is the only major product for CSNNE. Yes, they have Revolution, but MLS isn't a highly popular league in comparison to the European leagues.
There really isn't anything else carried on CSNNE that's in high demand. They have exvlusive rights to Patriots access. Ok, it won't kill most people to miss an exclusive Tom Brady interview on a Wednesday. Besides that, wow, I can watch Felger and Maz do their radio show. Radio shows on TV work for Howard Stern like shows. Not for two or three guys taking about sports. Don't get me started on Mike and Mike (garbage radio and tv in my opinion). They're asking for a lot for what is basically a seasonal channel. NESN on the other hand has year round coverage, as its owned by the Red Sox and Bruins. In fact, with NESN plus, there really isn't a reason to have CSNNE.
In the 80s when it was PRISM, then became, Sports Channel it also carried the Hartford Whalers. Not their fault, but the Whalers left. If it didn't happen, then I could see reasoning for two New England Sports channels. Put it all on NESN and shut down CSNNE.
There really isn't anything else carried on CSNNE that's in high demand. They have exvlusive rights to Patriots access. Ok, it won't kill most people to miss an exclusive Tom Brady interview on a Wednesday. Besides that, wow, I can watch Felger and Maz do their radio show. Radio shows on TV work for Howard Stern like shows. Not for two or three guys taking about sports. Don't get me started on Mike and Mike (garbage radio and tv in my opinion). They're asking for a lot for what is basically a seasonal channel. NESN on the other hand has year round coverage, as its owned by the Red Sox and Bruins. In fact, with NESN plus, there really isn't a reason to have CSNNE.
In the 80s when it was PRISM, then became, Sports Channel it also carried the Hartford Whalers. Not their fault, but the Whalers left. If it didn't happen, then I could see reasoning for two New England Sports channels. Put it all on NESN and shut down CSNNE.
Question, can you opt out of paying the RSN charge (and the channels), or are you forced to pay it if you want a package that happens to have them in it? Depending on the answer, it may not be reasonable after all.
One wonders how D* can remain profitable when they offer all the RSN's, have an expensive exclusive on NFL ST, and spend a gazillion dollars on advertising? Unlimited cash for sports networks cannot go on forever. ESPN in particular is feeling the pinch after losing over 7 million subscribers due to cord cutting: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/10/20/bloomberg-brings-bad-news-for-tv.aspx. The pertinent info:
"High-cost cable channels are hurt as well
Also hurt in the crossfire is high-cost cable channels. And there's no bigger poster child for high-cost content than The Walt Disney Company's (NYSE
IS) ESPN. An earlier Nielsen report by way of The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) found the company has lost about 7.2% of its subscriber base over the past four years, going from roughly 100 million subscribers to its current total of 92.9 million at the time of report -- and that matters to a company whose top and bottom lines are driven by its Media Networks business.
As a hypothetical, these lost 7.1 million users represent more than half a billion dollars on an annual basis, as each user is worth $6.55 monthly, according to SNL Kagan's data. In addition to cord-cutting, ESPN also suffers from the trend of cord-shaving, in which subscribers are trading down from high-end and expanded packages to slimmer basic ones in an attempt to save money.
The biggest risk for these companies is accelerating subscriber losses -- Bloomberg's compiled data suggests that last quarter wasn't an inflection point, but 70% greater subscriber losses on a year-on-year basis isn't too encouraging, either."
"High-cost cable channels are hurt as well
Also hurt in the crossfire is high-cost cable channels. And there's no bigger poster child for high-cost content than The Walt Disney Company's (NYSE
IS) ESPN. An earlier Nielsen report by way of The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) found the company has lost about 7.2% of its subscriber base over the past four years, going from roughly 100 million subscribers to its current total of 92.9 million at the time of report -- and that matters to a company whose top and bottom lines are driven by its Media Networks business.As a hypothetical, these lost 7.1 million users represent more than half a billion dollars on an annual basis, as each user is worth $6.55 monthly, according to SNL Kagan's data. In addition to cord-cutting, ESPN also suffers from the trend of cord-shaving, in which subscribers are trading down from high-end and expanded packages to slimmer basic ones in an attempt to save money.
The biggest risk for these companies is accelerating subscriber losses -- Bloomberg's compiled data suggests that last quarter wasn't an inflection point, but 70% greater subscriber losses on a year-on-year basis isn't too encouraging, either."
Do those numbers include OTT service that offer ESPN such as SlingTV?One wonders how D* can remain profitable when they offer all the RSN's, have an expensive exclusive on NFL ST, and spend a gazillion dollars on advertising? Unlimited cash for sports networks cannot go on forever. ESPN in particular is feeling the pinch after losing over 7 million subscribers due to cord cutting: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/10/20/bloomberg-brings-bad-news-for-tv.aspx. The pertinent info:
"High-cost cable channels are hurt as well
Also hurt in the crossfire is high-cost cable channels. And there's no bigger poster child for high-cost content than The Walt Disney Company's (NYSE
As a hypothetical, these lost 7.1 million users represent more than half a billion dollars on an annual basis, as each user is worth $6.55 monthly, according to SNL Kagan's data. In addition to cord-cutting, ESPN also suffers from the trend of cord-shaving, in which subscribers are trading down from high-end and expanded packages to slimmer basic ones in an attempt to save money.
The biggest risk for these companies is accelerating subscriber losses -- Bloomberg's compiled data suggests that last quarter wasn't an inflection point, but 70% greater subscriber losses on a year-on-year basis isn't too encouraging, either."
You do know how that would go, right? CSN NE shuts down, NESN gets the Celtics, Revolution and a few extra shows to be shown on the alternate channel. NESN would rightfully ask for a price increase, since they would be more valuable and Dish would drop them.
Buffalo is too small of a sports market to have our own RSN again. Time Warner’s low budget cable only RSN already carries Bison’s and Rochester Red Wings games and they get some Bandits and Amerks games as well and they are the home for SU athletics. I dropped Dish the moment MSG was dropped and haven’t looked back. I had both Dish and TWC, since TWC was the only provider to carry the Sabres feed in HD for a while. Dropped Dish asap for DirecTV, started subscribing to NFL ST and continue to have both DirecTV and cable. If by some chance a new RSN is created, I wouldn’t expect to see it on Dish.
DISH will pay more if NESN adds a pro sports team when the present contract is over if that were to happen, perhaps before. NESN wouldn't being asking double or anywhere near double what DISH pays now, which is what DISH would be paying for both CSNNE and NESN. In fact, that is the exact point of it all. Providers never envisioned so many separate RSN's would pop up. They end up paying for a channel like CSNNE with one major Pro team that plays for part of the year, and I suppose the Revolution, and the pro team is the least watched in the market. That's the problem with SNY a single pro team that for several months has no pro sports team. (This the first year for quite sometime they even have one PRO sports team.....
)I predict it's coming to an end with other providers also. As people refuse to pay the escalating cable prices and downgrade or some going online only, something has to give. It's going to be the cost of sports, and companies like Viacom insisting if you want the watched channels you have to take the ones few watch. If RSN's refuse to be separate of packages I can see some falling of some providers. Dodgers comes to mind.
If the problem with SNY is that it's an RSN that carries one team, what's the problem with MSG that carries five teams, six if you include the Red Bulls?
You give Dish way too much credit. Dish is cheap, Dish hates pro sports. If the Celtics came to NESN Cheap Charlie would be salivating in anticipation for NESN to ask for an increase so he could boot another RSN off.
You give Dish way too much credit. Dish is cheap, Dish hates pro sports. If the Celtics came to NESN Cheap Charlie would be salivating in anticipation for NESN to ask for an increase so he could boot another RSN off.
And Dish had no problem renewing the other four Comcast Sportsnet channels they had a contract for.
How many RSN's do think DISH has dropped? I don't know the exact number, but I don't think it's many more than the only ones being discussed.
I believe it does include those gone to other services. Most of the articles I've seen reference lost subscribers due to cord cutting and as a result lost revenue. They would not be lost if they moved to another provider such as OTT. That is just my way of thinking. One article I saw suggested ESPN would be laying off over 300 employees due to the lost revenue.
