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

[CK SatGuy]

They kinda did have to get MNF, and MLB, and NBA, and BCS bowl games, etc.; to remain relevant. Look at all of the major professional and collegiate sports that they carry....

OK, but who told them that they had to bid $1.9 billion per year for MNF? I don't remember hearing any competition for it so why make such a high bid? Did the league force them to pay that much?

 

[CubsWin]

I've said it before, but I would be all for Dish and other providers standing firm against ESPN. I am a huge sports fan, but ESPN is truly the evil empire of sports broadcasting and someone needs to reign them in. There is so much sports coverage on other networks that Monday Night Football is about the only thing I would miss.

 

[rapidturtle]

What channels cost the most? I will give you a hint its not Oprahs channel.

Compare apples to apple not apples to oranges.

Oprah doesn't have several channels like ESPN does, so her one channel should cost less. Oprah also has Rosie Odonell on her channel, so she should be paying us to even allow the channel in our guide.

 

[HanoverPretzel]

OK, but who told them that they had to bid $1.9 billion per year for MNF? I don't remember hearing any competition for it so why make such a high bid? Did the league force them to pay that much?

You don't think NBC Sports Channel would have been salivating over the prospect of adding a signature property like Monday Night Football to their lineup? It'd instantly put them almost on par with ESPN and make them a must-carry for the majority of cable and satellite packages. There's even the possibility of TNT or the USA Network going after something like that.

My feeling is, and this is just speculation, that ESPN probably went hard and made sure they bid high enough to lock it up to prevent the competition from being able to get in there and bid. It's not just about having Monday Night Football, it's also about not allowing another channel to get Monday Night Football and turn itself into major competition for ESPN.

 

[cosmo_kramer]

OK, but who told them that they had to bid $1.9 billion per year for MNF? I don't remember hearing any competition for it so why make such a high bid? Did the league force them to pay that much?

Who told Ilitch to offer 9 yrs/$214M to Prince Fielder?? No one else's offer was anywhere near that high, in years or dollars. In sports, when people with money really want something, it's been shown they're not afraid to overpay.

 

[dare2be]

In life, when people with money really want something, it's been shown they're not afraid to overpay.

FIFY

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Oprah doesn't have several channels like ESPN does, so her one channel should cost less. Oprah also has Rosie Odonell on her channel, so she should be paying us to even allow the channel in our guide.

Ok since the Oprah channel is actually one of the Discovery Channels, all the Discovery Channels still cost less then one channel of ESPN.

 

[whatchel1]

So these no sports packages might have little to no HD, and would also drop a few channels that I want to watch. Hardly a good choice. I'm all for putting sports out like HBO, but I'm sure I'll die without seeing it happen. Probably never happen, but that's only because they can get away with it.

Come ze revolution, I'll fix it all!

So why would they have to have little HD?

 

[HanoverPretzel]

Ok since the Oprah channel is actually one of the Discovery Channels, all the Discovery Channels still cost less then one channel of ESPN.

How do they do in the ratings relative to ESPN?

 

[MikeD-C05]

I disagree on the RSN. A lot of the RSN programming is local to the DMA (high school sports, regional college sports, locally produced specials). It is almost like a local channel in that regard. Almost every local cable system in the US has the RSN in their most basic of packages, or close to the bottom. The fact that the Sports Pack which includes dozens of RSNs, and the major sports network channels (NHL, MLB, NFL Network) is only $7 tells that an individual RSN's cost is a very small fraction of that.

Actually DISH offers top 120 programming without RSN and its $5.00 cheaper than the top 120 PLUS with RSN. Top 120 $44.99 and Top 120 PLUS $49.99, so it would only help to lower the cost of Sports free packs by at least $5.00 before they remove the Espns and other sports related channels. I can see the sports free programming packs as being at least $10.00 less than current sports filled versions.

 

[MikeD-C05]

Dish needs to do this... however, they also need the sports programming channels to go along with it.

They already have top programming packs with sports channels in them. I 'm only advocating that they release the same top programming packs without sports , so we could lower our bills on the same programming packs by $10.00 or more a month.

 

[dare2be]

Actually DISH offers top 120 programming without RSN and its $5.00 cheaper than the top 120 PLUS with RSN.

Plus FUEL and FOX Soccer Channel. So yeah, just removing the RSN wouldn't save $5.00.

 

[rapidturtle]

Ok since the Oprah channel is actually one of the Discovery Channels, all the Discovery Channels still cost less then one channel of ESPN.

I do get that ESPN is one of, if not the most expensive channel packages. Basically what I am saying though, is if your going to cut it out and offer a low cost package without it, then give those of us that like sports the option to out cut some of the other channels, and lower our bills.
I do realize that we would then be moving towards an ala cart type of system, and why that wouldn't really work.

I think that you said it right in another post, where it is just a vicious cycle. Unfortunately, we the consumers are the only ones with the power to stop it, and we just keep giving the providers our money. 15 years ago if someone had told me I would be paying close to $100 a month to watch T.V., I would have said they were nuts, and that it would never happen. But here I am waiting to see pricing on the Hopper Joey system, and checking out the HR34 so that I have the ability to watch and record even more television. !sadroll

 

[Yespage]

They already have top programming packs with sports channels in them. I 'm only advocating that they release the same top programming packs without sports , so we could lower our bills on the same programming packs by $10.00 or more a month.

And the sport channel owners would need to approve of not being on such a slate of channels. ESPN wants everyone to pay.

 

[navychop]

So why would they have to have little HD?

I'm not saying they'd "have to.". I'm saying from what I'm reading here, it's the way it is.

 

[MikeD-C05]

Plus FUEL and FOX Soccer Channel. So yeah, just removing the RSN wouldn't save $5.00.

I Said remove ALL sports channels in order to reduce price. IF they offered top programming packs withOUT ALL SPORTS , the prices would be at least $10.00 or CHEAPER than current programming packs.

 

[Mr Tony]

I Said remove ALL sports channels in order to reduce price. IF they offered top programming packs withOUT ALL SPORTS , the prices would be at least $10.00 or CHEAPER than current programming packs.

betcha it wouldnt

 

[mdram]

I Said remove ALL sports channels in order to reduce price. IF they offered top programming packs withOUT ALL SPORTS , the prices would be at least $10.00 or CHEAPER than current programming packs.

nope $10 more for a convenience fee

 

[Yespage]

betcha it wouldnt

Isn't Latino Dos the perfect example of a price decrease via the ESPNs (or additional Disney channels) not existing on the slate, while having a few choice channels not included with 120+?