Dish Network 4th Quarter Report early Preview

[Juan]

DIRECTV's video subscriber base (combined DIRECTV, U-verse, DIRECTV Stream) is the third largest traditional multi-channel video programming distributor (MVPD) in the U.S. with approximately 13.3 million subscribers at the end of 3Q22

DirecTV had 22 Million subs before AT&T bought them.

Now, out of the 13 Million, at least 2 Million are U-verse subs, 1 million are Stream, leaves 10 million for Satellite, now if they lose their average 500,000, they will be under 13 million total.

How that relates to Dish is why I am answering this here.

DirecTV 22 Million to 10 million, means a, roughly, 54-55% loss of subscribers.

Dish Network 14 million to 7.4 million, means a, roughly, 47% loss of subscribers

So, it does not matter that DirecTV had more subscribers, it still lost a higher percentage then Dish.

https://www.fitchratings.com/research/corporate-finance/fitch-affirms-directv-entertainment-holdings-llc-at-bb-outlook-stable-05-12-2022

Oh my goodness..my estimate was off a tad...how dare i be off by .7 million

 

[Bruce]

Oh my goodness..my estimate was off a tad...how dare i be off by .7 million

You did not say it was a estimate, you wrote you checked-

Not really..they had more customers to lose than dish...last time i checked directv had 14 million customers on ALL platforms

More misinformation from you.

 

[Juan]

You did not say it was a estimate, you wrote you checked-

More misinformation from you.

I checked 3rd quarter

 

[Bruce]

I checked 3rd quarter

Link please.

 

[HipKat]

The DISH techs around here are staying plenty busy repairing junk Samsung appliances. Have you been offered that opportunity yet?

That's in-house only and part of the Ontech division. I don't touch that stuff, thankfully

 

[HipKat]

If the NFL Sunday Ticket is alacart from google..why would sports fans( sunday ticket fans)..leave directv when the don't have to?..granted it won't be free or discounted anymore....but The NFL is still on every sunday on directv..YTTV is not a replacement for directv if you watch local professional sports...its very lame

Because DTV sucks that's why. It's crappy service and many people who stay with them, do it for football. I know, I replace DTV customers every single day. I'm your boots on the ground. I hear the DTV customer complaints and losing the NFL is one I hear, often.

Which speaks to the debate with Bruce and SamCdbs. You're both right, but it depends. Some small city or town that doesn't have pro-sports or are in a pro-sports region may not care about RSN's. Here, I get an earful daily about the cubs by customers so here, the RSN's are very important

 

[HipKat]

especially if they keep the gravy..commercial accounts

Who were mostly bars that show the NFL Ticket?

 

[Bruce]

Because DTV sucks that's why. It's crappy service and many people who stay with them, do it for football. I know, I replace DTV customers every single day. I'm your boots on the ground. I hear the DTV customer complaints and losing the NFL is one I hear, often.

Which speaks to the debate with Bruce and SamCdbs. You're both right, but it depends. Some small city or town that doesn't have pro-sports or are in a pro-sports region may not care about RSN's. Here, I get an earful daily about the cubs by customers so here, the RSN's are very important

Never said the RSN were not important to some, it is just the math has proven they are not important to the majority.

I do not believe it is fair to be forced to pay for them if you have a certain provider, specifically the extra RSN fee, if you never watch it.

I understand the economics that the channel needs everyone to pay for it, but if it cannot survive on it's own, then shut it down, that is how the free market works.

 

[fmj77]

Dish will probably raise their rates again in order to compensate, which will result in more customers cancelling their service.

 

[SamCdbs]

So "only one-third" is "insignificant". So, using that illogic, I'm starting a service with no channels whatsoever. Since no single channel gets anything close to one-third of people, they are all "insignificant'.

Email me and I will set you up with a totally content free package, an absolutely blank screen, 24/7/365. For only $40/month. You show em. Why should you pay for channels that are "only" every third person in the country?

Content free television. The wave of the future.

--

Meanwhile in the real world, among those of us who understand the TV business, we understand that anything that upwards of 1/3rd of people, given the absolute choice to have or not have (DirecTV vs. Dish, DirecTV Stream or FUBO vs, cut-rate streamers, and, of course, cable in most all cases) will pay for is, perhaps the most valuable thing in TV today.

The RSN problem is not in its popularity. It is the most popular thing in TV today, if you take the 1/3rd figure as accurate, except for the NFL itself. The problem is the old paradigm, of "everyone" paying a little, has been breached, mostly by Sinclair not using retransmission of the local stations to insure 100% RSN carriage, but as I have said, Sinclair is a horrid company, so why should you expect it to make a pro-consumer decision like that. The new paradigm of choice means that the people that don't like it (and, newsflash, in a diverse country EVERYTHING is only liked by a minority of people) don't "have" to pay for it.

The challenge for baseball is that it must find a way to get the cost of the local team's coverage, now done by the RSNs, down. One way, the only way I see, is to make sure that if you want ANY baseball (aside from the handful of games on Fox or TBS) you must first pay your fair share for the local team. No local RSN, no MLB.TV.

Failing that, all baseball goes away.

 

[Yespage]

Or one just subscribes straight through the MLB and the RSN goes the way of rotary dialing.

 

[Bruce]

Meanwhile in the real world, among those of us who understand the TV business, we understand that anything that upwards of 1/3rd of people, given the absolute choice to have or not have (DirecTV vs. Dish, DirecTV Stream or FUBO vs, cut-rate streamers, and, of course, cable in most all cases) will pay for is, perhaps the most valuable thing in TV today.

Ok, some points I will make.

Just 9 years ago, there were 87 Million Subscribers to Traditional Live TV, all of them received the RSNs.

Now only 48 Million ( of the 68 Million that pay for Live TV) that subscribe to Live TV do.

That number is shrinking every day.

The losses of 1.5-1.8 Million are reported at the end of the quarters.

That means the potential audience for the RSNs is decreasing by over 6 million a year.

The number of losses is increasing every year.

The only Live TV Services that are gaining in subscribers are the ones who do not carry the RSNs.

So, with the above info which I have provided links for before, how does that show that people want the RSNs when the losses are increasing for the Providers that have them?

It also shows that it was a good business decision that Dish made in dropping them, while the percentage of losses in subscribers were about the same as the Providers that still had the RSNs, Dish was able to increase their profits and still be a lot less expensive then DirecTV.

The RSN problem is not in its popularity. It is the most popular thing in TV today, if you take the 1/3rd figure as accurate, except for the NFL itself.

You keep posting that the ratings are so great for the RSNs, yet you still have never proven it with a link.

I did give you a link before in a different thread, the Yankees on YES, average number of those watching were 400,000 a game, NYC Metro Population is over 18 Million, that is pretty terrible.

 

[J_Smooth]

Sorry to interrupt the debate with a real life case.

I would like the RSNs but would never go to DTV to get them. So I tried to pay the $20 a month to get Bally Sports Detroit as I live in Michigan. But my Starlink has my location at its ground station in Chicago. So when I tried stream, it said I was out of location. Called customer service several times and it couldn't be fixed. So instead, I use MLB with a VPN and get it that way. The absurdity of the whole system is mind-boggling. You can't order from your television provider as they can't agree on a sensible solution, and you can't go direct, because they aren't ready for internet in the current day. The problem is really bigger than just access and an ala carte solution. But in the end, does it matter? The Tigers, Red Wings and Pistons are horrible now and for the foreseeable future. Problem solved!

 

[HipKat]

Sorry to interrupt the debate with a real life case.

I would like the RSNs but would never go to DTV to get them. So I tried to pay the $20 a month to get Bally Sports Detroit as I live in Michigan. But my Starlink has my location at its ground station in Chicago. So when I tried stream, it said I was out of location. Called customer service several times and it couldn't be fixed. So instead, I use MLB with a VPN and get it that way. The absurdity of the whole system is mind-boggling. You can't order from your television provider as they can't agree on a sensible solution, and you can't go direct, because they aren't ready for internet in the current day. The problem is really bigger than just access and an ala carte solution. But in the end, does it matter? The Tigers, Red Wings and Pistons are horrible now and for the foreseeable future. Problem solved!

Not to get off topic, but I run a VPN on every device I have whether I'm trying to hide something or change my location or whatever any reason anybody would use one, I just think it's a good idea to not be so open about everything that everybody is trying to monitor

 

[Bruce]

Sorry to interrupt the debate with a real life case.

I would like the RSNs but would never go to DTV to get them. So I tried to pay the $20 a month to get Bally Sports Detroit as I live in Michigan. But my Starlink has my location at its ground station in Chicago. So when I tried stream, it said I was out of location. Called customer service several times and it couldn't be fixed. So instead, I use MLB with a VPN and get it that way. The absurdity of the whole system is mind-boggling. You can't order from your television provider as they can't agree on a sensible solution, and you can't go direct, because they aren't ready for internet in the current day. The problem is really bigger than just access and an ala carte solution. But in the end, does it matter? The Tigers, Red Wings and Pistons are horrible now and for the foreseeable future. Problem solved!

Former Metro Detroit Resident that now lives in Florida.

Since it has you living in Chicago, why not get the MLB without the VPN, then if you wish, ESPN+ for the Red Wings and League Pass for the Pistons.

 

[BLC1962]

Umm, actually it proves that SOME people don't want the RSNs, and some people do. Today's environment gives them a choice. RSNs remain the highest single rated channel in most core baseball markets every single night all baseball season.

That does not mean the current RSN model isn't broken. It is, and the fix will not be pleasant for those who are trying to show the world just how much money that they can save by doing without.

Making a decision and then declaring ones self to be the trend setter for everyone else is pretty sad.

I agree that some want RSNs, and some do not. That is why I am an advocate for providing the RSNs as an ala-cart option. If companies like Sinclair's Diamond sports would have allowed an ala-cart option, I believe Dish would still be carrying the Bally Sports RSNs and offering them as an ala-cart option just like they do premium movie channels. I moved to Dish at the end of baseball season last year on the hopes that Bally Sports would be able to stream MLB next season on Bally Sports+. This is looking less and less likely now. Therefore, if MLB does not figure out another way to stream in-market games I am going to be forced to pay for a second service just to get my local MLB team. I will pay for a second service if necessary to watch the Cardinal's games and I am definitely not alone but that is my choice and others should not be forced to pay for RSNs if they do not want to.

 

[SamCdbs]

Ok, some points I will make.

ENDLESS repeating of subscriber statistics are not "points". We get it. YOU are out to save the most money you can. Whatever does that, from watching YouTube to checking out VCRs from the county library is just fine with you. And EVERYONE should be just like you. You are the paragon of a social trend. People that actually think life is too short and want to be entertained and are willing to pay for it are suckers.

Understand this is a TV enthusiast website. To make analogies, you are the guy on the car enthusiast website posting about how he rides the bus and everyone will be forced to in a year or two. You are the guy on a football website posting about soccer. You are the guy on the foodie website posting about Burger King. You are the guy on the cigar website posting about Swisher Sweets.

I'm not out to save money. I'm out to get EVERYTHING the TV world offers. Live sports, especially local sports, linear TV, the streaming originals (the rest of streaming is just reruns), everything. I realize that cost moeny. So does everything else.

You keep posting that the ratings are so great for the RSNs, yet you still have never proven it with a link.

I did give you a link before in a different thread, the Yankees on YES, average number of those watching were 400,000 a game, NYC Metro Population is over 18 Million, that is pretty terrible.

That is my link. And, as I pointed out then, tell me the ONE THING that does better.

Been waiting.

Also have been waiting a while for an answer to EXACTLY WHAT streaming must do to become profitable. What? I'll wait.

 

[Bruce]

We get it. YOU are out to save the most money you can.

Darn right, being careful with money allowed me to retire at 52 with no worries about money, now 4 years later, I have been able to watch more then I ever have in the year's prior combined.

I'm not out to save money. I'm out to get EVERYTHING the TV world offers. Live sports, especially local sports, linear TV, the streaming originals (the rest of streaming is just reruns), everything. I realize that cost moeny. So does everything else.

That really is hypocritical coming from you, you posted in the DirecTV thread that you only pay $65 for your DirecTV because that is what your landlord charges you.

Specially since the average monthly DirecTV is now over $140 with fees.

That is my link. And, as I pointed out then, tell me the ONE THING that does better.

Jeopardy, local TV ratings are a 5.1

NY Yankees 2.9

"Jeopardy!" Sinking Ratings Draw a Competitor in NY and LA: New 7pm NBC Local News Starts Monday - Showbiz411

I’ve been telling you for months that “Jeopardy!” was sinking in the ratings and was in trouble. I guess someone listened. Starting Monday, WNBC Channel in New York and KNBC in Los Angeles will launch a 7pm local half hour newscast to compete with the quiz show. No one’s tried this since 2007...

www.showbiz411.com

Last week, "Jeopardy!" fell back to just a 5.1 in the ratings

Then-

The team's 2.9 household rating

and

Yankees games on Yes Network led all of baseball in viewership thanks to airing on an average of 219,000 households

That is it, 219,000 out of 18 Million, that shows why the RSNs are dying, you want everyone to pay for RSNs for the minority that watch, not just a minority, a extreme minority, for example, only 1.2% of the population in New York City's Metro Area.

Aaron Judge home run chase buoyed YES Network amid ongoing RSN collapse: Sports on TV

The Aaron Judge home run saga was good news for YES, which might be in a rare position to succeed in the flailing RSN landscape.

theathletic.com

 

[Bobby]

You are the guy on a football website posting about soccer.

With the exception of the USA and Canada, to the rest of the world football is soccer!

 

[sam_gordon]

I am done responding to you here