Maybe on a per channel basis, but not overall. According to whoever that is quoted in the last few posts, about half the cost is for sports programing and about half is for non sports programing. Can't get more symmetrical than that.
Dish HD vs Disney (DISH sort of won...)
- Thread starter wingnut10
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 1K
- Views 220K
Maybe on a per channel basis, but not overall. According to whoever that is quoted in the last few posts, about half the cost is for sports programing and about half is for non sports programing. Can't get more symmetrical than that.
Let's hope ESPN gets reamed good in court and has to disclose everything so we all could see it and will be waiting for verdict hopefully in Dish favor and does look good in dish favor imo 
No you are not factoring far less subscribers to an all sports package resulting in a higher cost per channel. That's why the RSN'S are so against being separate. Meanwhile so few households would get only the sports packages that there would be a negligable decrease in subscribers to the regular packages. In fact cost could go down even more if enough people not now using a provider decide they can now afford the regular packages.
BULLPUCKEY!
It has been stated that a la carte wort work and the reasons given are that channels will charge a MILLLLLion dollars a month each. I don't buy it. Never have, never will. Market forces will take care of things. Right now, market forces aren't allowed to do their thing because of the monopolistic practices of the content providers. And I will state again, that having a la carte as an OPTION does not preclude having packages for those who want them.
Who is to say that there would be a negligible decrease in subscribers to regular packages if they took the sports channels away? Sports have many of the highest rated programing hours every year. It sure seems like a lot of people like them. You make it sound like sports are the only channels that don't want to be separate from the general package. Every channel wants to be in the general package. Did AMC allow IFC and Sundance to become ala-carte channels? No, They bundled those channels in with their AMC contract.
Your point about how less subscribers to sports channels would result in a higher cost per channel could be said about any channel. Do you really think the cost of channels like AMC would stay the same if customers had to specifically choose to sign up for them on an individual basis? I sure don't. I think they would raise their per customer cost to cover the lost income from all the people who only had AMC because it was included in their package. If that is the case than boom I am subsidizing AMC (or keeping your cost for AMC lower by also paying a portion of AMC's income).
I have nothing against AMC. I was just using them as an example. The truth is every channel would either cost more or no longer exist if they were taken out of the general packages and only the people who really wanted them had to pay for them. Everyone here seems to think that is only true for sports channels but that's just not the case. I'll say it again. Everyone is paying for (or subsidizing) channels they don't watch. Not just sports bashers. That's just the way the cable and satellite TV business works.
I'm not the biggest court person, so maybe someone could explain this to me... but is this the trial the final verdict? Whoever loses, could they still appeal to someone else and we would be in a holding pattern again until the contracts expire at some point later this year?
I don't know if we will. http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-rt-us-dish-espn-lawsuitbre91b00g-20130211,0,671448.story
"In the earlier lawsuit, filed in 2008 in New York state court, Dish accused ESPN and several Disney subsidiaries of not providing certain high-definition channel feeds, including ESPN News and Disney Channel. A jury found for ESPN and Disney in 2011 and said they were entitled to keep $56 million in fees. Dish is appealing."
So it sounds like that is a completely separate lawsuit. But maybe if they settle, part of the settlement would be the other case would be resolved.
1. You are mixing two things. You are talking A la Carte, I am not.
2. I say there would certainly be a negligible decrease. If Dish offered an all sports package, and then the same packages they do now, without the sports, you can't think any meaningful percentage of households would drop the regular packages. Hardly anyone would. They would keep them, and then those families that wanted the sports would, in addition, get the sports package. (For the sake of this discussion the two together is even the same as what someone would pay now) There can't be more than a tiny percentage of households that would only get the sports package. Meanwhile the regular package would cost much less, and people would have the choice, either way, to save money. But I maintain most households are not giving up USA, TNT, A&E, etc etc.... but many will be glad to save the money and not get the Sports. I should say there willl still be a healthy percentage of homes that will get the sports, but much much less than get the regular packages.
3. "Everyone is paying for (or subsidizing) channels they don't watch. Not just sports bashers." I agree. Problem is, what we pay for three RSN's could be three times or more that many other channels. And that's the rub. It's not an equal playing field. I don't mind paying for a few channels I don't really watch, the cost of most even combined isn't way out of the question. But three or so RSN's, ESPN, and the many other sports channels that cost more than regular channels adds up fast. There are articles devoted to the non proportionate cost of Sports.
4. Think about the statement (If true) that 1/2 the cost is because of Sports. Now look at the myriad of Channels, and what smaller percentage are sports channels. That small percentage of channels is costing 1/2 the total amount, and that's the problem.
Last edited:
There is one problem with the sports only package.What truly defines a sport channel?USA,TNT,TBS,MTV,TRUtv,Spike,and many others have some sport content.Which would also lead to problems with say an entertainment package.There would have to be crossover channels.
Hate Paying for Cable? Here’s Why.
Wow look at the difference in price. So who subsidizing who......
This from 2010 and I am sure ESPN went up since then and that's for one ESPN.
You’ll find this particularly upsetting if you don’t watch sports. Because sports channels account for about 40 percent of cable fees.
Wow look at the difference in price. So who subsidizing who......
This from 2010 and I am sure ESPN went up since then and that's for one ESPN.
You’ll find this particularly upsetting if you don’t watch sports. Because sports channels account for about 40 percent of cable fees.
Hate Paying for Cable? Here’s Why.
View attachment 85308
Wow look at the difference in price. So who subsidizing who......
This from 2010 and I am sure ESPN went up since then and that's for one ESPN.
You’ll find this particularly upsetting if you don’t watch sports. Because sports channels account for about 40 percent of cable fees.
That's going to go up when Fox rebrands Speed and Fuel as Fox Sports 1 and 2. Fox has said they want .90 cents to a $1 a sub.
http://www.multichannel.com/content...cable-nets-during-upfront-presentation/141627
You said the high cost is the reason the RSNs are so against being separate. Being separate is kind of the same thing as being ala-carte. That is the reason I said all channels would be against being separate.
I can agree with many of the points here. I just don't like how many people here seem to act like this is a one way street. NotMe seems to think he is the only one subsidizing channels he doesn't watch. It's not all or nothing.
I don't think we will see these sports free packages anytime soon anyways. Until we do it's all hypothetical. The way TV contracts are structured with so many channels being owned by a few companies prevents it from happening. Companies like Disney probably won't allow the Disney channel and ABC Family in a package that doesn't include ESPN.
Given that you could bundle a lot of channels for $5 or $10 they could probably remain value packs. Channels charging more than a few cents would have to figure out if they are going to lower their rate to be in the basic bundle or raise it up more to cover being a stand alone channel.
Really, because Verizon has already started it.
Verizon Strips Sports Out of FiOS TV 'Select HD' Package
http://www.multichannel.com/telco-tv/verizon-strips-sports-out-fios-tv-select-hd-package/141331
Verizon Communications now offers a totally sports-free FiOS TV package, “Select HD,” with a lineup of 30 HD channels that excludes ESPN and other dedicated sports networks priced $15 less per month than its regular entry-level HD tier.
Sports “is not everyone’s cup of tea,” Verizon director of media relations Bill Kula wrote in a blog post announcing the new package. “In fact, we have many customers for whom watching sports is akin to me watching a fashion or dance program (not fun for me at least).”
actually Comcast does it here in Minneapolis too. But its more than just sports they strip out....Most of the Viacom channels are too
