Dish CEO Hints at Possibly Dropping ALL RSNs

[Jhon69]

Heres the problem, you still paying for channels that you dont watch.. Lets say I love fox news and I cant get enough of it.. I buy in to the "news pack" I'm paying for CNN, HLN and MSNBC, ect. All channels that I would never watch. The only way to do this right would be to have a pick and choose your own package, but that would drive the prices of channels up even more.

So you know my father-in-law too?.

 

[goaliebob99]

So you know my father-in-law too?.

Is it the ring master?

 

[ProfStata]

A-la-carte won't lower costs for most consumers. Each channel would have to dramatically increase their rates because they need to get the revenue they currently receive. Plus, advertising budgets would go through the roof, because each provider would need to market their channel to a much greater extent then they do now.

 

[HDRoberts]

Heres the problem, you still paying for channels that you dont watch.. Lets say I love fox news and I cant get enough of it.. I buy in to the "news pack" I'm paying for CNN, HLN and MSNBC, ect. All channels that I would never watch. The only way to do this right would be to have a pick and choose your own package, but that would drive the prices of channels up even more.

Less likely than it is today. At least this way you choose rather you want news at all.

 

[MikeD-C05]

I have a question:

Why does everyone talk about having a provider without sports and how much cheaper that would be, but never about a provider with sports but without movies and other stuff and how much cheaper that would be? I mean, a big sports fan could just as easily say "Hey, I never watch Disney, why should I have to pay for it?" (And Disney is an expensive channel for providers, right?). I'm just saying, it cuts both ways. Sports channels may be expensive to the provider, relatively speaking, but even if they're $3.00 a pop, a package with two RSNs, three ESPNs, TNT (for basketball), Versus (for hockey), and the NFL Network (for football), would only be $24. Throw in your local OTA networks, whatever the cheapest 24 hour news channel is, and a few very cheap general interest channels (and/or sort of "off-brand" sports channels that might be cheap), plus a little breathing room for overhead and profit, and you could do a "sports fan" package for $35 pretty easily.

If the industry winds up offering a package where non-sports fans don't have to pay for sports and get a price break, then it only seems fair that sports fans should be able to subscribe to a sports centric package that doesn't include children's programming and movie channels and whatever, and get a price break for that, too. There's no reason sports fans should have to pay through the nose because louder non-sports fans get a non-sports package and then sports channels have to raise their per subscriber fee to compensate, but sports fans still have to pay for Disney and the like.

That raises another important point with all of this, though -- anything that moves the ball significantly closer to al carte is likely to mean that you pay the same or more in the long run for less programming. Basically, any channel, sports or no, is not going to want to see it's income slide as only people with a direct interest subscribe -- so they'll likely raise what they charge to compensate for those lost subscribers. The end result? People will get only the channels they are interested in and not have the option to, say, catch an occasional movie if they are mainly a sports fan, or an occasional game if they are mainly a movie fan. I think the idea that rates will drop is a myth. Call me crazy, but I think the truth of the matter is that the current system of broad-based packages is best for the consumer -- at least people usually get a wide variety of channels for their money, rather than paying the same amount for a handful of channels only (the likely result of ala carte).

In the case of ESPN , you have to get DISNEY as well ,because they are all the same company. This is one of the reasons Charlie is flirting with the idea of dropping rsns and sports channels into a separate pack. It is rumored that ESPN /Disney is looking for a 100% increase the next time the contract comes due. Both channels are in the lowest programming pack, so it would effect everyone in price. Espn is already responsible for $5.00 of the basic pack , so imagine another $5.00 increase on your bill. I think Charlie is smart and should drop the sports channels into a separate tier. Then if Espn /Disney decides to pull this stunt , we won't have to pay more AGAIN for channels I never watch anyway.

 

[MikeD-C05]

I'm betting the cost of all children's networks bundled together do not even equal the cost of one RSN. That is why the drum beats hardest for sports. You save the most there.

Look at me, I have the welcome pack. The only pack without ESPN. Because of that my total cost (DVR fee included) is under what JUST THE PROGRAMMING costs from your theortical pack (don't forget a huge portion of the bill is distribution related, as satellites, uplinks, and "free" installation are not free).

The best world would be more like the Canadian system. Genera-centric packs. Add in a distribution component based on how many packs you have. You could have:

-A "Basic" pack (standbys like TNT, TBS, Syfy, Spike, AMC, and so on)
-A few sports packs (basic: ESPN, ESPN2, local RSNs; expanded: Versus, NFL, Tennis, out of market RSNs, etc.)
-A "Lifestyle" pack (Food, Cooking, HGTV, DIY, etc)
-A "Kids" pack (Nick, Cartoon, etc.)
-A "Classics" pack (TV Land, Hallmark, TCM, etc.)
-A "Learning" pack (Discovery, History, TLC, etc) (Yes, I know it is a joke to call these learning channels anymore)
-A "Womens" pack (Lifetime, We, Oxygen, etc.)
-A "Music/Reality" pack (MTV, CMT, Fox Reality, etc.)
-A "News" pack (CNN, Fox, MSNBC, HLN, Headline News, etc.)
and so on.

Channels still grouped together, but in a way we don't pay for the types of channels we never watch.

This would be a great solution to our ala carte issues in this country too, if they would allow it . I have advocated this every since I learned about the Canadian sat system.

 

[Peter Parker]

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

Yes but most people with Netflix or Hulu still have access to sports elsewhere.

 

[JosephB]

Ok, I may have been wrong about RSNs being cheap, but the point of bandwidth still stands. If that's the problem, stick them on spots and roll the costs into locals. For national packages that need RSNs, just reserve some bandwidth for feeds for hockey, NBA games, etc. It would still be less than putting every RSN up in HD full time on CONUS. And if RSNs cost $2.50 each, then they can't be making much money on the sports package that gets you every RSN.

Another idea would be to start putting a line item on everyone's bill for channels, so that customers can see where their money is going. ESPN costs $5? Put it on the bill. Roll the RSNs into locals, and break out the cost for locals. List each local that demands a retrans fee and list each RSN. Charge a locals fee that is tailored to the cost of locals for that market.

I have a question:

Why does everyone talk about having a provider without sports and how much cheaper that would be, but never about a provider with sports but without movies and other stuff and how much cheaper that would be?

This idea should scare the hell out of programmers. There is tons of talk of people who are 'cutting the cord', IE: getting rid of cable/satellite and depending only on Hulu/Netflix/downloads. I am very close to that point, but I don't want to lose sports and news. If I could buy a cheaper package that gave me news + sports only, I'd jump on it in a heartbeat. With 50mbit mostly uncapped cable internet here, I don't really need Comedy Central, HBO, etc. beamed into my house. Especially if I wanted to lose my scruples and hit up bit torrent.

 

[whitewolf8214]

If dish drops rsns im gone to direct tv and dish needs to add them in hd 24/7

 

[Tampa8]

This idea should scare the hell out of programmers. There is tons of talk of people who are 'cutting the cord', IE: getting rid of cable/satellite and depending only on Hulu/Netflix/downloads. With 50mbit mostly uncapped cable internet here, I don't really need Comedy Central, HBO, etc. beamed into my house.

Two problems. First, talk is cheap. There is most certainly a huge increase of people who selectively download programs. There is most certainly not a huge increase of people only depending on that especially considering the economic times, you would expect more. Yes I have seen certain groups, primarily younger (under 25) who are on the go alot with school, work, socializing, etc... that if on their own may only rely on the internet. I tried to find a study that was on the "Inside Cable News" website. They pointed out a study that was talking about people who rely only on the Internet was dramatically flawed, it included people who live at home, with parents who have Cable. Yes, they do not really watch the Cable because they spend so little time at home, but that skewed the information.

Second, enjoy the uncapped internet while you can, because that is going to be an Achilles heel for any move to provide complete programming online. You must be aware of the recent announcements by providers that they now have a cap, soon will, or a slow down after a certain amount of bits. Right now the amount seems reasonable. Wanna bet that will change?
And if that isn't enough to dim that thought, do you think what is free now will be?

If people change their habits and decide to only watch a very few programs the Internet will (and does now sort of) work. There is no easy answer to escalating costs, I don't thing the Internet will be either overall.

 

[cosmo_kramer]

Found the transcript of the latest earnings call. A lot of interesting things said, and especially related to RSNs, and apparently SNY in particular:

Question:

..in some markets, you're deemphasizing regional sports programming or arguably simply not trying to sign some regional sports contracts. Does that strike you as a potentially attractive strategy for less affluent customers to say, in some markets, you will focus on price rather than sports breadth?

Charles Ergen:

… it depends on the willingness of our programming partners to structure a deal that works for us. I guess strategically, I would say it this way, if you got 3 competitors and they all have the sports programming and only 15% of the people actually watch the sports programming, so there's probably a real good path for somebody not -- for one of the 4 not carry sports programming would have a great strategic advantage for certain customers. If everybody carries exactly the same thing, then it doesn't -- there's no advantage except you raise price. And I think that from a sports perspective, we are not viewed as the leading provider of sports. Having said that, the only markets that we certainly prefer to carry sports and we're able to come to an agreement with Fox, so we carry the vast majority of the regional sports networks. I believe we come into agreement with most of Comcast and so forth. So I think we carry most of it. In New York City, where we don't have -- we've never had Yes Network, and it may not make as much sense, and we have a high degree of international customers where the sports programming is not as important to them. So I don't think you can make a blanket statement that we've exited the Regional Sports Business. In fact, I think of the 27 regional sports, I think we only don't carry 2 or 3 of them, or 30 regional sports, we don't carry but 2 or 3 of them. But there is a strategy potentially out there for one video provider not to carry regional sports. And I think there might be some short short-term pain, but they probably do pretty well long term, if that was the case. But that is not our strategy today with the exception of probably the New York market, where we're just having -- if somebody's got a losing team, it's not doing very well and they want a 50% increase in price, it doesn't make any sense. I mean there's a limit to what we think our customers are willing to pay for that. We have viewer management. We know what they watch. We can very objectively get to a value for our channels in what we think the long-term result is if we take something down versus paying an increased price.

Here's the link to the full transcript, with a some observations about Blockbuster and Tivo:

Dish Network's CEO Discusses Q1 2011 Results - Earnings Call Transcript - Seeking Alpha

 

[JonUrban]

Dish lost me, a 13+ year subscriber who bought every damn piece of equipment they offered over the years, the HD modules with the $10 fee for HD Discovery Theater when that was all they had plus the demo channel, every DVR from the early to the monster 921 and 942 (or whatever they were), all the way up to the 922. I bought it all, even bought a 1000.4 myself to get better signal.

All gone because they tanked my RSN (SNY) and in 13 years, our horrible cable company caught up to their HD and now I get all the RSNs in HD and FULLTIME.

I miss my Dish DVRs, that's for sure, because I was weened on them, but overall, the cable has been better than I expected.

I guess to Charlie, I'm just collateral damage!

 

[tigerfan33]

These big multi billion dollar contracts like the one Fox and ESPN just signed with the PAC 12 are not helping matters. The fact is it will only get worse!!

 

[Super Dave]

I don't know about that. I would think DirecTv and local cable companies would jump all over it as a selling point to differentiate themselves from DISH. Carrying local sports is big sell in many cities, like Buffalo. In fact, the Sabres are the ones leading the charge to get people on DISH to move to DirecTv or Time Warner to see the Sabres. And I have a feeling it's working.

It has always worked here in Philly. Comcast does not share their Sporstnet and Network channels with either satellite provider. Any Phillies, Flyers or Sixers fan cannot cut the cable because of this. I had high hopes when CC was purchasing NBC, that they would finally be forced to share since their loophole was closed, but that never happened. If it ever happens I expect to see dishes popping up like mushrooms, CC is very expensive.

 

[rthomp03]

I'm as loyal to Dish as they come, but if Charlie drops RSNs then even I'm outta' here.!protest

 

[andrewj0781]

Isn't there a right to have law? Were you have to right to local programming and local channels. That's why when you get MLB tv or a Verses carries an event and your local channel does you have to watch the local feed. I'll have to google this.

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

 

[andrewj0781]

Isn't there a right to have law? Were you have to right to local programming and local channels. That's why when you get MLB tv or a Verses carries an event and your local channel does you have to watch the local feed. I'll have to google this.

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

It's only for cable companies with more than 36 channels.

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/cblbdcst.html

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

 

[MikeD-C05]

You know premium movie channels like Hbo/Starz/Cinemax/Showtime are offered ala -carte and Lord knows they charge a premium price for them. Why shouldn't the sports channels ,which also charge a premium price, be spun off into their own ala carte pack - just like the premium movie channels? Three things would happen if DISH did this:

1) The price of all top programming packs would drop substantially. This would give all customers a break from the ever increasing price increases.

2) DISH if they were the first to do ala-carte sports packs, would be the true LOW cost provider for all regular programming. THis would also force other cable and satellite providers to reconsider their programming prices too, if they wanted to compete. All customers would benefit in the industry.

3) The customer would would be the winner in this whole thing. IF you wanted sports they would be there and you could add them to your regular top programming pack just like the Premium movie packs today. IF you don't like Sports , you wouldn't have to add them and you could save $$$ and OR add movie packs to your top programming packs.

Also DISH would most likely be able to provide true HD Rsns for everyone ,since the price wouldn't be tied to other regular channels like ESPN is tied to Abc Family/Abc channels and DISNEY. This would be revolutionary in the market place and I see everyone getting what they want. Yes the sports channels would cost more to those who wanted them ,but the premium movie channels are costly too. I mean HBO alone is $16.00 a month. But if you want it you pay the price. Seems fair to me.

 

[FORHIRE33]

If Charlie wants to get rid of all RSNs, that's just fine with me. Maybe not for sports fans but if it means saving money for future HD channels so be it.

 

[jbernardi]

If Charlie got rid of my RSN, I'd be the first one to cancel Dish.

I do not need HD RSNs 24-7, as long as all the games are in HD.