Dish isn't the only one having trouble w/ ESPN.

whatchel1

SatelliteGuys Master
Original poster
Sep 30, 2006
9,098
51
Great High Plains
Got this from Morning Bridge. Maybe ESPN is about to get a rude awakening.
Last month, Liberty Media CEO Greg Maffei said the rising costs of ESPN is a "tax on every American household." A few short weeks later, news has leaked that Cox is set to launch an economy subscription package without the "Worldwide Leader in Sports" giving pay-TV customers a choice on the four-letter sports net 'surcharge.'

According to company communication, Cox is launching its TV Economy package for $35 per month at the end of January. The package includes all of the channels in its "starter" package, plus a handful of national cable nets not named ESPN.

The news comes from a letter written by Cox Government Affairs Manager Barrett Stork to a county administrator in Williamsburg, Virginia. The document is Stork notifying the company's local franchise authority in the area that it will offer the limited package at $34.99 per month, which includes the rental fee for one standard def STB. (CableCARD customers will pay $31/month.)

As part of the tier's "expanded" line-up, Cox is offering AMC, BET, Cartoon Network, CNN, Comedy Central, Discovery, Disney, E!, Food Network, Fox News, History Channel, Lifetime, Nickelodeon, TruTV, TV Land, USA and the Weather Channel. Not only is ESPN notably absent from the line-up, but there is no sports-related equivalent to take its place.

To be clear, Cox did start notifying local authorities late last year that it would roll out the new reduced package. The company said the TV Economy tier was at first a trial run in select markets but now is a "permanent" product among its service packages.

:D:D:D:D:D
 
DISH needs to come out with Sports free versions of their basic top programming packs with HD . Both Welcome pack & Family pack , no Hd except locals. DISH needs to excise the sports channels including the RSN and ESPN sports channels and make them attractive to those of us that still want HD. The way it is setup right now , if you don't want sports you can get either Welcome pack or family pack but only in SD. IF they were to do HD top programming packs without Sports, I am sure this would be low cost alternative to many subs out there and even attract new subs to their company. DISH was first for HD FREE for life. They need to be first for Sports FREE- HD For LIFE programming packs too.
 
DISH needs to come out with Sports free versions of their basic top programming packs with HD . Both Welcome pack & Family pack , no Hd except locals. DISH needs to excise the sports channels including the RSN and ESPN sports channels and make them attractive to those of us that still want HD. The way it is setup right now , if you don't want sports you can get either Welcome pack or family pack but only in SD. IF they were to do HD top programming packs without Sports, I am sure this would be low cost alternative to many subs out there and even attract new subs to their company. DISH was first for HD FREE for life. They need to be first for Sports FREE- HD For LIFE programming packs too.

I don't ever see this happening. ESPN is part of Disney-ABC-A&E-Biography-CI network-History-H2-Lifetime-Military History and Soapnet (list probably not complete,this was a quick search). So every time any contract comes up to a cable or a satellite provider all the above are held as bargaining chips.
 
I don't ever see this happening. ESPN is part of Disney-ABC-A&E-Biography-CI network-History-H2-Lifetime-Military History and Soapnet (list probably not complete,this was a quick search). So every time any contract comes up to a cable or a satellite provider all the above are held as bargaining chips.
If COX can do it then so can everyone else.
 
Sports Networks aren't greedy. Its what the professional athletes are getting paid thats driving up the cost. People who dislike sports should not be subsidizing the outrageous salaries profesional atheletes are getting by being forced higher pay tv prices.
 
ever check what your favorite actor got for their last film? at least athletes give a full season , not just two hours of entertainment for the money.
 
DISH needs to come out with Sports free versions of their basic top programming packs with HD . Both Welcome pack & Family pack , no Hd except locals. DISH needs to excise the sports channels including the RSN and ESPN sports channels and make them attractive to those of us that still want HD.
Dish needs to do this... however, they also need the sports programming channels to go along with it.
 
ever check what your favorite actor got for their last film? at least athletes give a full season , not just two hours of entertainment for the money.
But at least you have the option to opt out by no giving them your money. We need that option for TV sports.
 
Arse69 said:
Sports Networks aren't greedy. Its what the professional athletes are getting paid thats driving up the cost. People who dislike sports should not be subsidizing the outrageous salaries profesional atheletes are getting by being forced higher pay tv prices.

Some sports networks have crazy demands like msg makes you carry their fuse music network. Doesn't make sence there not even rlated programing
 
ever check what your favorite actor got for their last film? at least athletes give a full season , not just two hours of entertainment for the money.
Yeah but I have a choice if I want to go see his movie or not. Now I (and millions others) am taxed for sports that I never watch.
 
Everyone wants to jump on the athlete and sports networks and say they are making to much money. What about the actors, writers and producers for the other channels. They don't seem to be doing to shabby. Last time I saw Oprah, she doesn't look like she is starving.

I do agree that not everyone wants to watch sports, but by the same token, I don't want to watch Oprah, lifetime, religious, spanish, shopping, tvland, food network, etc..... I know that they don't charge as much as ESPN, but if you add all of them up, it starts getting costly.

Why should you have to pay for ESPN if you don't watch sports?, Why should I have to pay for Nickelodeon, cartoon network, ABC family if I don't have kids?

If you are going to make a non sports package, then how about making a guy package. Give me my N.Y. RSN's , ESPN, NFL, MLB, NHL, and you can keep 75% of the other channels. Setup some base packages, and then let us choose extra channels for what they cost. I know some channels won't survive, but why should I have pay for them if I don't watch them? If they don't have much of a following, then why are they even on?
 
Sports Networks aren't greedy. Its what the professional athletes are getting paid thats driving up the cost. People who dislike sports should not be subsidizing the outrageous salaries profesional atheletes are getting by being forced higher pay tv prices.

This is a very simplistic view disregarding fairly simple economic principals. The league/owners negotiate the contract with the sports networks and the league/owners are going to maximize their income from these television contracts. I can think of no logical arguments for why league/owners wouldn't want to maximize their income and this is REGARDLESS of their costs including their costs to pay the players. Sports networks take the risk that they can make a profit from selling commercials on their programming as well as what they can get in fees from programming providers such as Dish. Sometimes sports networks lose money from this such as when NBC had the contract with the NBA and lost hundreds of millions of dollars over a 4 - 5 year period. Fortunately for the NBA, they were able to sell the television rights to ABC/ESPN (both Disney companies) for more than what NBC paid for them (and lost money on them). Of course NBC didn't have the multi-channel leverage that Disney has with ABC, ESPN (and its multi-sports attraction) and the other Disney channels to extract much higher programming fees.
 
remember espn has to pay all the leagues for the use of footage
iirc its close to a billion a year or so just to the nfl
 
Sports networks are greedy because the Athleetes are greedy...

Anytime you hear your favorite player just signed a record deal its safe to say your price of your favorite sports channel is going up.
I don't think that is quite the case. ESPN is costing more because they overbid for MNF. They didn't have to get MNF. The network figured they could afford the high bid by passing on the price to the consumer.

This doesn't have to do with player salaries. CBS and FOX pay a boatload of money for the AFC and NFC TV rights. Then they splatter games with tons of commercials to try and make money for their huge bids. They are bidding high to make the competition not have the content. Then expect us to pay for the premium they think is worth paying for, via commercials or sub fees.
 
Everyone wants to jump on the athlete and sports networks and say they are making to much money. What about the actors, writers and producers for the other channels. They don't seem to be doing to shabby. Last time I saw Oprah, she doesn't look like she is starving.
What channels cost the most? I will give you a hint its not Oprahs channel. ;)

Compare apples to apple not apples to oranges.
 
ever check what your favorite actor got for their last film? at least athletes give a full season , not just two hours of entertainment for the money.
Do you have any idea how long the superstar actor is "in the game" when doing a blockbuster?

I bet it is more than a few hours per day for a few weeks.

They all get paid quite alot but we don't have to subscribe to movie channels and we shouldn't have to subscribe to sports channels to watch non-sports content.
 
We all pay for stuff we don't watch because we have no choice. If there was a way to only pay for what a customer wanted to watch, then we could all be happy, but we all kow that is never going to happen.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Latest posts