The Disney/ABC/ESPN cartel would never let that happen, holding all of their sports and non-sports channels ransom.
ESPN Looking for 70% Increase in 2012 Negotiatinos
- Thread starter chicagonettech
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 114
- Views 15K
If I can point something out here...it seems that many of us have the impression that it's completely up to DishNetwork (or DirecTV or Time Warner or whomever) as to what constitutes a "sports package". We might remember that the positioning of the channel is one of the main points of contention during contract negotiations. But that's not all...during a contract negotiation, the following points may or may not be up for consideration:
1. cost of the channel
2. positioning of the channel (basic pack, expanded basic pack, sports and/or movie pack, etc.)
3. what other channels may or may not be bundled with it (in order to get ESPN you have to take ESPN2, Longhorn Network, ESPN HD, or whatever)
4. length of contract
I seem to remember that it's Dish's position that it wants the ability to sell just about everything in some kind of separate package, but that the providers (Disney, Fox, etc.) insist on bundling certain channels together at a certain tier level in order to guarantee advertisers a certain number of households.
As we've seen in the above-referenced articles, it appears that Disney (remember there IS no ESPN) is about to go over the line in its demands. It wouldn't surprise me if DishNetwork subs have to do without it for a while come contract time.
We may also want to remember that it's not just the cablecos/satcos that are affected by this. To quote one of the Journal's articles referenced above:
Broadcast TV is facing the same pressures....and the main driver is the NFL.
My own prediction...eventually the NFL will control all of its own rights, through some kind of super-Sunday ticket venture and will try to cut both broadcast and pay tv out of the loop, except for a few select games.
But let's not forget that the colleges are demanding more and more for their football product as well. For instance, take the Longhorn Network package that Disney/ESPN signed with the University of Texas. Personally, I think ESPN's $300 million guarantee for UT-Austin third tier sports was nothing short of foolish. But if Disney can force it onto all cable and satellite companies during the ESPN negotiations and get the 40 cents a sub that it's demanding, it will be laughing all the way to the bank.
1. cost of the channel
2. positioning of the channel (basic pack, expanded basic pack, sports and/or movie pack, etc.)
3. what other channels may or may not be bundled with it (in order to get ESPN you have to take ESPN2, Longhorn Network, ESPN HD, or whatever)
4. length of contract
I seem to remember that it's Dish's position that it wants the ability to sell just about everything in some kind of separate package, but that the providers (Disney, Fox, etc.) insist on bundling certain channels together at a certain tier level in order to guarantee advertisers a certain number of households.
As we've seen in the above-referenced articles, it appears that Disney (remember there IS no ESPN) is about to go over the line in its demands. It wouldn't surprise me if DishNetwork subs have to do without it for a while come contract time.
We may also want to remember that it's not just the cablecos/satcos that are affected by this. To quote one of the Journal's articles referenced above:
Broadcast TV is facing the same pressures....and the main driver is the NFL.
My own prediction...eventually the NFL will control all of its own rights, through some kind of super-Sunday ticket venture and will try to cut both broadcast and pay tv out of the loop, except for a few select games.
But let's not forget that the colleges are demanding more and more for their football product as well. For instance, take the Longhorn Network package that Disney/ESPN signed with the University of Texas. Personally, I think ESPN's $300 million guarantee for UT-Austin third tier sports was nothing short of foolish. But if Disney can force it onto all cable and satellite companies during the ESPN negotiations and get the 40 cents a sub that it's demanding, it will be laughing all the way to the bank.
Last edited:
This may be a too simple of a question.
Why doesn't Dish start a separate company and/or just start a satellite service without any sports at all? Make it a separate company from Dish. Call it something else "Basic Home Satellite". People who want sports will get Dish network. People who want low cut rate Satellite TV and could care less about sports would go with "Basic Home Satellite".
Dish will run both companies using the same STB, satellites and infrastructure. But it will be an offshoot of Dish and since it could be considered a separate service...just have it without RSN's or sports. It will as cut rate as possible. If "Basic Home Satellite" subscribers wish to migrate to Dish later on, (or visa versa) no need for re-installation or changing things out.
Just change the level of service (companies) through customer service.
Why doesn't Dish start a separate company and/or just start a satellite service without any sports at all? Make it a separate company from Dish. Call it something else "Basic Home Satellite". People who want sports will get Dish network. People who want low cut rate Satellite TV and could care less about sports would go with "Basic Home Satellite".
Dish will run both companies using the same STB, satellites and infrastructure. But it will be an offshoot of Dish and since it could be considered a separate service...just have it without RSN's or sports. It will as cut rate as possible. If "Basic Home Satellite" subscribers wish to migrate to Dish later on, (or visa versa) no need for re-installation or changing things out.
Just change the level of service (companies) through customer service.
Interesting concept but I don't see it working. They still have to put up with the broadcast companies and figure out contracts with them. It would be pretty cool and would have a decent following but I wonder how profitable it would be. Not gonna happen if Dish can't make some good change from it.
I would imagine the offerings for this new company would be severely limited, considering the number of non-sports channels owned by many of the conglomerates that own the sports networks. Just looking at 2 of the biggest, Disney/ABC/ESPN and the Fox Entertainment Group, by removing ESPN and FSN regionals, you'd likely not be able to get the Disney channels, ABC Family, Fox News, FX, Fox Movie Channel, SoapNET, and other channels that have significant partial ownership of these groups, such as A&E, History, Biography, Nat Geo, etc.
I came up with this idea of having a separate service because I saw that THN (The Hotel Network) has a cut rate service just for hotels. Sure they don't carry everything ...they only have 10 channels...Dish could offer up something like this as a separate company. Again it is just an idea...
The Hotel Networks - Free Cable Program
The Hotel Networks - Free Cable Program
The only problem is exactly what others have posted. It takes 2 to tango. Unless cable channel providers go along with the idea, it's a dead duck.
In essence if there was a third upstart satellite company and they wanted to carry Fox and ABC. They would be denied programming unless they also carried RSN's and ESPN. But Hotel Networks are exempt from it. It appears that there something just a bit unethical or anti-competitive about the practice. Forcing a company to go through extra steps and carry something extra while the other company is exempt...doesn't seem right.
Welcome to the world of oligopoly. In addition to the anti-competitive nature, the major players tend to engage in collusion in order to keep the status quo, and not do things that would be a detriment to the other major players.
I just thought it was a good idea for Charlie to start a separate cut rate satellite TV service. I think the concept is a good one, even though in practice he would be prevented from it...What do I know? I don't even have Dish I been a Direct sub for 10 years....oh well back to the program....lol
Excellent point. I made the same point several months ago in a similar thread... to some of the same people who still post about wanting sports channels split out today.
They won't hear it, because they don't want to. They want others to subsidize them, without having to return the favor. If I'm gonna be forced to pay for channels like MSNBC, MTV and Cartoon Network, I darn sure better get ESPN in the same deal.
Cheers
The problem is that cable and satellite companies are facing a line in the sand here, because of the increasing price of ESPN and other sports channels , that are forcing the cost of their basic programming packs to sky rocket. Subs are starting to cut the cord in response to the ever increasing price hikes and potential younger subs are not even subscribing to cable or satellite at all . They don't even see a reason to pay for tv at ALL. So you have sat/cable companies stuck with an ever decreasing base of subs -due to price hikes forcing subs to drop the service and a younger class of potential subs never taking your service at all . IF there isn't a company that stands up to these price hikes ,yes DISH I'm talking to you, there will be no future growth for satellite or cable companies. Especially DISH ,which has made their ENTIRE sales campaign on being the low cost leaders in the industry. DISH continues to lose subs just about every quarter. How long has DISH been stuck at around 13 million subs? They are just spinning their wheels on growth, three quarters losses and maybe one quarter with some additions. Yes, they are continuing to make profits, due to their ever increasing group of made up , charge it because we can FEEs, but that continues to hurt them as well. Many subs say Screw it because of all their fees and drop down to one receiver , or drop down to the lowest programming pack and or drop the service . Something has got to give. Charlie Ergen needs to take the lead once more, and stand up for the subs out there. If not the point of no return well be at hand and more people will make the decision to cut the cord and go ota only + netflix and or vudu , blockbuster etc. Most if not all the content that most basic cable subs watch is available on these services for much much less than cable and or satellite.
Being able to watch what you want will never be free or stay inexpensive. The more people that switch to getting their TV from the internet the more the price is going to go up for those services. Just like how Netflix raised their prices. Sites that are free or very inexpensive to watch programming will eventually have to raise their rates when more people subscribe. The larger a company gets the more it's expenses are and they need to find a way to make more money. It's easy to offer something for next to nothing when you have no overhead but once you have thousands of subscribers you need more man power. Just look at this site. The more members Scott has the more money he has to put into the site in order for it to run properly.
I'd be willing to bet if everyone switched to Netflix, Hulu Plus and whatever other online providers there are out there, that their rates would go up drastically in just a couple years.
I'd be willing to bet if everyone switched to Netflix, Hulu Plus and whatever other online providers there are out there, that their rates would go up drastically in just a couple years.
You might be right about them raising prices when you add a lot of subs. Look at Netflix. THey added subs like crazy and then hiked prices. Look how that turned out for them. People voted with their feet and left by about a million or more and their stock continues to drop in value. Same thing applies to Satellite and cable companies. The more they hike the prices , the more subs they lose like in Dish's case. As for Directv , they add the subs from their latin America company to the final total pumping up their numbers. I would like to see how many they really added without them. Cable has continued to lose subs ,since the satellite and teleco companies started in business. The future is less people willing to pay for traditional delivered tv like Sat/cable or telecos. So companies can find away to stop the losses by giving us some ala cart options and or packs without sports and they might keep some subs and possibly attract new ones. The customer wants MORE CHOICES for LESS Money. That is what the whole internet thing has been about since it began. INNOVATION and less money to get it. DISH needs to get behind this movement before it is left behind and relegated to the history of failed U.S. companies. Because Tv is all about the 18 - 49 age group demographic. The trend is less people willing to pay for traditional delivered tv by sat/cable /telecos. As this age group continues to age and add new subs to it, that trend will continue to expand.
I am a firm believer that the general public will never be truly happy with what they have, especially in the US. If it ever goes to a la carte there are going to be people complaining because it cost waaay too much to get all the channels they want. No matter what happens there is going to be a group of people who are not happy. The reason things are the way they are now is because people want more and more. Just read the threads on here. "I want this channel or that channel, I want 3D channels, more HD, more sports, less sports...." The companies are trying to give everyone want they want the best way they can. The general public is a very self centered bunch now days and very demanding. Note that I said GENERAL PUBLIC, I'm not directing this at any specific people. Being in business it has become very noticeable that people are becoming more demanding and expecting more for less. It has a lot to do with the economy and how some generations were raised.
Maybe that is because businesses have begun to offer horrible customer service, raise prices on a frequent basis, and generally try to wring every last dollar out of every last customer, with no rewards for customer loyalty. It's a far cry from the era of the mom and pop general store where the markup was minimal, the adage was "the customer is always right", and the products were designed to last a lifetime (as opposed to planned obsolescence and pay as you go).
If people back in the 1950s had been told they had to pay what people today are paying for television on a monthly basis, even if the figures quoted were adjusted for inflation, they would have thought the world had gone crazy.
I will give you one thing, though- people are a little more picky about costs when financially stressed. I am in a situation where I have had and will have a very low income long term, and I am constantly flummoxing people who don't get where I'm coming from. I don't have dental insurance, so when the dentist office tries to schedule me in for exactly six months from my last appointment, I always have to say "No, I'll call you in a few months" and wait to see what my financial picture is going to look like- because that dentist appointment may have to be in 8 months, or 10 months, or even a year. I've had a bunch of phone calls back and forth with my optomologist the last couple days because I simply wanted them to provide me my last eye prescription so I could order a $6 pair of eye glasses online from China to use in the event my current aged eye glasses break suddenly- they want me to come in, but payment is due at the time of service, and I won't be able to do it until the spring.
Now, in an economy where more and more people are closer to my economic bracket, you can see why people start breathing fire when a television bill goes up or they threaten to take away sports, or whatever. People are making big time sacrifices just to have some basic small luxuries like television to be able to take some kind of small mental break from the stress they have to deal with day to day. They have very few outlets like that. If they're like me, they're struggling to pay basic bills- food, health care, gas, auto repair, etc.. So when they sacrifice to pay for small luxuries just to keep from going insane, and then the companies that provide them want to wring more dollars out of them or take away what they perceive as the key value they're getting (i.e. sports), people do react strongly. Is that really all that surprising?
When you have channels as popular and in demand like the ESPN's, you will always have company's, like Disney, that will take advantage of this situation and milk every possible dollar possible. In this case, Disney will insist that ESPN be carried in every providers basic package. In a nut shell, they can get away with this because the American consumer has placed such a high demand for sports programming. Unless the American consumer changes, which we all know will NOT happen, then we are stuck with status quo. It's our bed, we made it, now we must sleep in it.
Watching TV can be as inexpensive as you wish it to be. They still offer free programming over the air. Where I live there are tons of customers who strictly use OTA because thats all they need and think pay TV service is outrageous. Now most of the people that do this in my area are farmers and do not care much for TV because they can't afford it or don't have much time to watch it.
I think the reason everything is so messed up no days with product is because of the general consumer. Even if they have the money they want everything cheap, cheap, cheap. In order for companies to make things cheaper they have to cut corners. The same companies making these products have to pay employees who need to be paid more and more. In order for these companies to make product cheaper and pay employees less they move them out of the US. Now we have inferior products and fewer jobs. I think it's like a vicious cycle. This is just my view on how things are the way they are. I'm using the appliance industry for my example for companies just so you know. We get tons of complaints on how appliances are not what they use to be but then that same customer will tell me they want the best deal possible. Everyone thinks they're getting ripped off. It's getting hard to please people and still make a living.
I think the reason everything is so messed up no days with product is because of the general consumer. Even if they have the money they want everything cheap, cheap, cheap. In order for companies to make things cheaper they have to cut corners. The same companies making these products have to pay employees who need to be paid more and more. In order for these companies to make product cheaper and pay employees less they move them out of the US. Now we have inferior products and fewer jobs. I think it's like a vicious cycle. This is just my view on how things are the way they are. I'm using the appliance industry for my example for companies just so you know. We get tons of complaints on how appliances are not what they use to be but then that same customer will tell me they want the best deal possible. Everyone thinks they're getting ripped off. It's getting hard to please people and still make a living.
