Dish shrinks pay TV subscriber losses to 133,000 in Q4 . . .

[SandFarmer]

Dish Network, across its satellite TV business and Sling TV, lost approximately 133,000 pay TV subscribers in the fourth quarter, down from 194,000 in the year-ago quarter.

The company said it closed the quarter with 11.29 million pay TV subscribers. That includes 8.82 million Dish TV subscribers (down about 140,000 during the fourth quarter) and 2.47 million Sling TV subscribers (up about 10,000 during the fourth quarter).
For 2020, Dish said it lost approximately 526,000 net pay TV subscribers: about 408,000 net Dish TV subscribers and about 118,000 net Sling TV subscribers.

The annual Dish TV losses do not include the approximately 250,000 subscribers removed in the first quarter of 2020. Those figures represent commercial accounts impacted by COVID-19. Dish said that during the year, 80,000 of those subscribers came off pause or had temporary rate relief end and were included in the company’s ending pay TV subscriber count for 2020.

RELATED: Dish Network added over 200,000 Sling TV subs in Q3

Sling TV stood pat in 2020 while competing virtual MVPDs including YouTube TV, Hulu + Live TV and fuboTV all raised their base package rates to $65 per month.
In January, though, Sling TV raised prices by $5 per month for new subscribers to the service, which will now start at $35 per month for the Sling Orange or Sling Blue packages. New customers can also choose to subscribe to both Sling Orange and Sling Blue for $50 per month, which also represents a $5 per month increase.

However, thanks to a one-year price guarantee instituted in 2020, existing customer prices will not change through July 2021 as long as their existing subscription remains active.
While pay TV revenue largely held steady in 2020, up 0.7%, Dish Network got a substantial revenue boost from its wireless business in 2020. The segment contributed nearly $2.6 billion to consolidated revenues to bring the figure up to $15.49 billion, up 21% year over year.

 

[Mochuf]

Dish Network, across its satellite TV business and Sling TV, lost approximately 133,000 pay TV subscribers in the fourth quarter, down from 194,000 in the year-ago quarter.

The company said it closed the quarter with 11.29 million pay TV subscribers. That includes 8.82 million Dish TV subscribers (down about 140,000 during the fourth quarter) and 2.47 million Sling TV subscribers (up about 10,000 during the fourth quarter).
For 2020, Dish said it lost approximately 526,000 net pay TV subscribers: about 408,000 net Dish TV subscribers and about 118,000 net Sling TV subscribers.

The annual Dish TV losses do not include the approximately 250,000 subscribers removed in the first quarter of 2020. Those figures represent commercial accounts impacted by COVID-19. Dish said that during the year, 80,000 of those subscribers came off pause or had temporary rate relief end and were included in the company’s ending pay TV subscriber count for 2020.

RELATED: Dish Network added over 200,000 Sling TV subs in Q3

Sling TV stood pat in 2020 while competing virtual MVPDs including YouTube TV, Hulu + Live TV and fuboTV all raised their base package rates to $65 per month.
In January, though, Sling TV raised prices by $5 per month for new subscribers to the service, which will now start at $35 per month for the Sling Orange or Sling Blue packages. New customers can also choose to subscribe to both Sling Orange and Sling Blue for $50 per month, which also represents a $5 per month increase.

However, thanks to a one-year price guarantee instituted in 2020, existing customer prices will not change through July 2021 as long as their existing subscription remains active.
While pay TV revenue largely held steady in 2020, up 0.7%, Dish Network got a substantial revenue boost from its wireless business in 2020. The segment contributed nearly $2.6 billion to consolidated revenues to bring the figure up to $15.49 billion, up 21% year over year.

Shrank subscriber losses. Well, that's one way to look at it.

 

[MrDRC]

Its surprising they didn't lose more. Direct has shed almost 30% from their high water mark with Dish slightly less. With the subscribers being reported for the various steamers the market is enormous but not for traditional cable/sat. There might not be an absolute end game but a shrunken traditional market is permanent unless major innovative breakthrough happens.

How bout a Hopper that can record steamers? That would be an interesting product even though a big mountain to climb. My biggest dislike for streamers or any on-demand is buffer and delay with rewind and fast forward. Give me a Hopper that can locally store steamer programming and I'll buy it tomorrow.

Steamers...gotta love iOS autocorrect. STREAMERS!

 

[KE4EST]

Steamers...gotta love iOS autocorrect. STREAMERS!

I was wonder what kind of show you were calling steamer.

 

[Bruce]

Its surprising they didn't lose more. Direct has shed almost 30% from their high water mark with Dish slightly less. With the subscribers being reported for the various steamers the market is enormous but not for traditional cable/sat. There might not be an absolute end game but a shrunken traditional market is permanent unless major innovative breakthrough happens.

Math is not your friend, Dish’s high water mark was 14 million subs, now down to 8.82 million, that is a loss of 37%.

 

[pattykay]

That would be an interesting product even though a big mountain to climb.

Their first streaming partner (other than Sling TV, obviously) could be Paramount +

 

[pattykay]

Math is not your friend, Dish’s high water mark was 14 million subs, now down to 8.82 million, that is a loss of 37%.

That high water mark includes Dish and Sling (which was non-existent at the time). Dish (including Sling) current subscriber numbers are 11.29 million. I'm sure those Directv numbers also include their vMVPD service, not just their satellite service. So, let's do apples-to-apples comparison here.

 

[mwdxer1]

Its surprising they didn't lose more. Direct has shed almost 30% from their high water mark with Dish slightly less. With the subscribers being reported for the various steamers the market is enormous but not for traditional cable/sat. There might not be an absolute end game but a shrunken traditional market is permanent unless major innovative breakthrough happens.

How bout a Hopper that can record steamers? That would be an interesting product even though a big mountain to climb. My biggest dislike for streamers or any on-demand is buffer and delay with rewind and fast forward. Give me a Hopper that can locally store steamer programming and I'll buy it tomorrow.

Steamers...gotta love iOS autocorrect. STREAMERS!

I knew they would get loses. I have talked to a couple that dropped Dish. Their reason, they just did not watch a lot of the channels. They now watch the free OTA channels.

 

[MrDRC]

I was wonder what kind of show you were calling steamer.

Shows from Cleveland

That high water mark includes Dish and Sling (which was non-existent at the time). Dish (including Sling) current subscriber numbers are 11.29 million. I'm sure those Directv numbers also include their vMVPD service, not just their satellite service. So, let's do apples-to-apples comparison here.

Which is exactly what I compared, total subscribers, from a 1 page google search calculated in my head. Math is actually my friend. It's a useless post because it's a silly point to even debate.

 

[PortlandChris]

The bottom line is DISH costs more than cable when you need internet as well. The bundle is a better deal overall. DISH just cannot compete.

And cable has sports channels.

DISH booted almost all RSNs and made it so anyone who wants to watch sports can no longer do so. Those customers are leaving or have left. This is just plain fact.

DISH calculated that there were many customers who would prefer lower rates and no sports. Fair enough. But those who want to watch sports were faced with needing to leave.

 

[MrDRC]

The bottom line is DISH costs more than cable when you need internet as well. The bundle is a better deal overall. DISH just cannot compete.

And cable has sports channels.

DISH booted almost all RSNs and made it so anyone who wants to watch sports can no longer do so. Those customers are leaving or have left. This is just plain fact.

DISH calculated that there were many customers who would prefer lower rates and no sports. Fair enough. But those who want to watch sports were faced with needing to leave.

As far as costs sure, that impacts but you think sports are a big reason for Dish's subscriber loss? I don't. The viewing market for sports pales in comparison to general entertainment. Disney has almost 100 million subscribers while ESPN has 12 million. Regionals are specific and a specialty. ie: very very small interest group. NFL Sunday Ticket? No, 2 million subscribers. In the big scheme of things sports has minimal impact on Dish's overall declining numbers.

 

[pattykay]

You think sports are the reason for Dish's subscriber loss? I don't.

I think it is the reason why Dish's losses were so much higher in Q4 2019 (which is kind of the subject of this thread). That is the year when those RSN's were lost. So naturally, the Q4 2020 losses would be lower, since those who wanted to watch those sports channels would have already left long before then.

 

[DishSubLA]

Shrank subscriber losses. Well, that's one way to look at it.

It the ONLY way to look at this business because there just aren't going to be any gains, so its a matter of how fast the shrinkage--and when will it bottom out, not the belief of the unicorn myth of growth. .

 

[DishSubLA]

As far as costs sure, that impacts but you think sports are a big reason for Dish's subscriber loss? I don't. The viewing market for sports pales in comparison to general entertainment. Disney has almost 100 million subscribers while ESPN has 12 million. Regionals are specific and a specialty. ie: very very small interest group. NFL Sunday Ticket? No, 2 million subscribers. In the big scheme of things sports has minimal impact on Dish's overall declining numbers.

My sports rabid brother has not cancelled Dish. He tells me he and his other sports obsessed rabid fans view sports on League apps or other on-line means that are very rarely connected to MVPD's or vMVPDs. He has not needed his Dish for a lot of his Sports watching for a long time, since he wants to see the game LIVE--wherever he is at the moment, he is FINE with watching on mobile and getting the scores is often the bigger desire. He is not interested in just his teams, but EVERY team and almost all sports. I asked him if the removal of RSN's from Dish affected his viewing of sports. His answer was "NO" and he explained why, which is in the text above. That is a far cry from years ago when he absolutely "needed" those RSN's.

The point is that the vast majority of subscribers to v/MVPD's (and the vast majority of the US population) are NOT so interested in sports that they want nor wish to pay extra for a RSP and don't watche them. Further, those who are "fair weather" sports fans are only interested in the "big" games or paly-offs that are routinely avialable on the widly accessed ESPN, TNT, etc. Also, LOTS of non-sports fans often HOST superbowl parties and World Series, events that pull in a greaty many viewers who know nothing about sports.

As rabid, and loud, and loyal as many sports fans are, they do represent a MINORITY of the population. Yes, the squeeky wheel really does make us think they are the majority.

 

[DishSubLA]

Its surprising they didn't lose more. Direct has shed almost 30% from their high water mark with Dish slightly less. With the subscribers being reported for the various steamers the market is enormous but not for traditional cable/sat. There might not be an absolute end game but a shrunken traditional market is permanent unless major innovative breakthrough happens.

How bout a Hopper that can record steamers? That would be an interesting product even though a big mountain to climb. My biggest dislike for streamers or any on-demand is buffer and delay with rewind and fast forward. Give me a Hopper that can locally store steamer programming and I'll buy it tomorrow.

Steamers...gotta love iOS autocorrect. STREAMERS!

There are legally ways to record streaming content referred to as "Archiving," in high quality. While it is against TOS of all steaming services to "archive" content, the irony is that individuals do have a right under "Fair Use" to do so, in any circumstance so long as it is for personal and private use.

Now, as far as a 3rd party providing the means to LEGALLY provide the ability to record the content of streaming services, one high-end media server (I can't recall the name) has a U.S. patent for doing so POST DRM, which means it does NOT violate DMCA by NOT circumventing DR, and their patented process is integrated in their media server for sale to the public (for a lot of money).

The question is will the niche product maker license his technology so that other devices can legally record content from streaming services in a manner as we do today as integrated as part of a DVR today--NOT having to set-up our PC to download using a browser, as is the case for the ones offering such archiving today. In other words, any device such as a Roku, FireTV or even a cable or sat DVR having such an option as to "archive" streaming content. The Streaming services TOS would have NO bearing because as long as we individuals have obtained access to the content legally (as part of a paid subscription), we have a right of FAIR USE to "archive" the content for our PERSONAL and PRIVATE use. This is one reason other means of "archiving" streaming content have not be put out of business, although for many of those other companies offering such software, it has been developed outside the US (and other countries also enforcing portions of US DCMA law) and all financial transactions for such services occurring out the US.

A US patented method as mentioned above would really change things for the better, and if such software could NOT be integrated in connected devices or DVR (due to upsetting current relationships with content owners), a separate device specifically can be produced to do the job from a company (it could be a fairly large corporation) who does not live by relationships with "Hollywood," just a Sony made recording devices and continued to sell all manor of studio and broadcast equipment to all the media companies and Hollywood studios.

So, the day of legally archiving streaming content may come some day.

 

[charlesrshell]

There are legally ways to record streaming content referred to as "Archiving," in high quality. While it is against TOS of all steaming services to "archive" content, the irony is that individuals do have a right under "Fair Use" to do so, in any circumstance so long as it is for personal and private use.

Now, as far as a 3rd party providing the means to LEGALLY provide the ability to record the content of streaming services, one high-end media server (I can't recall the name) has a U.S. patent for doing so POST DRM, which means it does NOT violate DMCA by NOT circumventing DR, and their patented process is integrated in their media server for sale to the public (for a lot of money).

The question is will the niche product maker license his technology so that other devices can legally record content from streaming services in a manner as we do today as integrated as part of a DVR today--NOT having to set-up our PC to download using a browser, as is the case for the ones offering such archiving today. In other words, any device such as a Roku, FireTV or even a cable or sat DVR having such an option as to "archive" streaming content. The Streaming services TOS would have NO bearing because as long as we individuals have obtained access to the content legally (as part of a paid subscription), we have a right of FAIR USE to "archive" the content for our PERSONAL and PRIVATE use. This is one reason other means of "archiving" streaming content have not be put out of business, although for many of those other companies offering such software, it has been developed outside the US (and other countries also enforcing portions of US DCMA law) and all financial transactions for such services occurring out the US.

A US patented method as mentioned above would really change things for the better, and if such software could NOT be integrated in connected devices or DVR (due to upsetting current relationships with content owners), a separate device specifically can be produced to do the job from a company (it could be a fairly large corporation) who does not live by relationships with "Hollywood," just a Sony made recording devices and continued to sell all manor of studio and broadcast equipment to all the media companies and Hollywood studios.

So, the day of legally archiving streaming content may come some day.

There are legally ways to record streaming content referred to as "Archiving," in high quality. While it is against TOS of all steaming services to "archive" content, the irony is that individuals do have a right under "Fair Use" to do so, in any circumstance so long as it is for personal and private use.

Now, as far as a 3rd party providing the means to LEGALLY provide the ability to record the content of streaming services, one high-end media server (I can't recall the name) has a U.S. patent for doing so POST DRM, which means it does NOT violate DMCA by NOT circumventing DR, and their patented process is integrated in their media server for sale to the public (for a lot of money).

The question is will the niche product maker license his technology so that other devices can legally record content from streaming services in a manner as we do today as integrated as part of a DVR today--NOT having to set-up our PC to download using a browser, as is the case for the ones offering such archiving today. In other words, any device such as a Roku, FireTV or even a cable or sat DVR having such an option as to "archive" streaming content. The Streaming services TOS would have NO bearing because as long as we individuals have obtained access to the content legally (as part of a paid subscription), we have a right of FAIR USE to "archive" the content for our PERSONAL and PRIVATE use. This is one reason other means of "archiving" streaming content have not be put out of business, although for many of those other companies offering such software, it has been developed outside the US (and other countries also enforcing portions of US DCMA law) and all financial transactions for such services occurring out the US.

A US patented method as mentioned above would really change things for the better, and if such software could NOT be integrated in connected devices or DVR (due to upsetting current relationships with content owners), a separate device specifically can be produced to do the job from a company (it could be a fairly large corporation) who does not live by relationships with "Hollywood," just a Sony made recording devices and continued to sell all manor of studio and broadcast equipment to all the media companies and Hollywood studios.

So, the day of legally archiving streaming content may come some day.

Super Hopper 3.2!!!

 

[Mochuf]

There are legally ways to record streaming content referred to as "Archiving," in high quality. While it is against TOS of all steaming services to "archive" content, the irony is that individuals do have a right under "Fair Use" to do so, in any circumstance so long as it is for personal and private use.

Now, as far as a 3rd party providing the means to LEGALLY provide the ability to record the content of streaming services, one high-end media server (I can't recall the name) has a U.S. patent for doing so POST DRM, which means it does NOT violate DMCA by NOT circumventing DR, and their patented process is integrated in their media server for sale to the public (for a lot of money).

The question is will the niche product maker license his technology so that other devices can legally record content from streaming services in a manner as we do today as integrated as part of a DVR today--NOT having to set-up our PC to download using a browser, as is the case for the ones offering such archiving today. In other words, any device such as a Roku, FireTV or even a cable or sat DVR having such an option as to "archive" streaming content. The Streaming services TOS would have NO bearing because as long as we individuals have obtained access to the content legally (as part of a paid subscription), we have a right of FAIR USE to "archive" the content for our PERSONAL and PRIVATE use. This is one reason other means of "archiving" streaming content have not be put out of business, although for many of those other companies offering such software, it has been developed outside the US (and other countries also enforcing portions of US DCMA law) and all financial transactions for such services occurring out the US.

A US patented method as mentioned above would really change things for the better, and if such software could NOT be integrated in connected devices or DVR (due to upsetting current relationships with content owners), a separate device specifically can be produced to do the job from a company (it could be a fairly large corporation) who does not live by relationships with "Hollywood," just a Sony made recording devices and continued to sell all manor of studio and broadcast equipment to all the media companies and Hollywood studios.

So, the day of legally archiving streaming content may come some day.

There are already ways to record internet streams. Channels DVR can record TV Everywhere content and Play On can record some VOD content. Plus all of the various Youtube downloaders that are out there. While none of them are perfect, they do exist.

 

[TV Junkie]

There are already ways to record internet streams. Channels DVR can record TV Everywhere content and Play On can record some VOD content. Plus all of the various Youtube downloaders that are out there. While none of them are perfect, they do exist.

$50 hdmi dump box will record just about everything

 

[TheKrell]

$50 hdmi dump box will record just about everything

I am unable to Google one of those... What search term should I be using?

 

[TV Junkie]

I am unable to Google one of those... What search term should I be using?

Exact model I am familiar with although I don't remember $120

Amazon product ASIN B01IYJLP0M