Holy Cow Did Multisport Get Expensive!

So for a lousy $3, no sports. Thank god Ergen saved his subscribers from that.
As one of 10 million or so that wouldn't have access to the channels, I don't want to pay $3 more. Back then, charging RSN fees probably wasn't seriously considered.
 
If I recall correctly "back then" it was widely publicized that Charlie offered YE$ to name their own price for Dish to carry the channel a la carte and YE$ could have 100% of subscriber fee for anyone that subscribed, but YE$ said NO DEAL, they wanted wider distribution so all subs would pay even if they don't watch. Never been a deal since. Since then $NY and M$G have gone away too.
 
As one of 10 million or so that wouldn't have access to the channels, I don't want to pay $3 more. Back then, charging RSN fees probably wasn't seriously considered.

In the DirecTv model, i think the extra $3 charge applies only to those that have SNY, MSG and YES as their local RSNs

I would pay $3 more a month under that model with Dish to get my hometown hockey team. It doesnt look like Dish is getting MSG back......It's why I am considering a switch to DirecTv for hockey season.


Posted Using The New SatelliteGuys Reader App!
 
It doesn't just apply there, they are expanding where they charge that. It covers about 1/4 of their U.S. subscribers at this time. It's not optional, you pay another $3 a month on top of what you already pay for the RSN's a year even if you never watch RSN's.

In a market with 3 RSN's that's about $12 and up of your package. IF you add ESPN's that's in the neighborhood of $17+ of your package. And Direct has been honest about it, saying that $3 does not cover what Direct is paying and the surcharge may become more widespread.
 
If I recall correctly "back then" it was widely publicized that Charlie offered YE$ to name their own price for Dish to carry the channel a la carte and YE$ could have 100% of subscriber fee for anyone that subscribed, but YE$ said NO DEAL, they wanted wider distribution so all subs would pay even if they don't watch. Never been a deal since. Since then $NY and M$G have gone away too.

Indeed. Charlie was proving a point. And he did.
 
So for a lousy $3, no sports. Thank god Ergen saved his subscribers from that. I guess that coupled with the increase in fees would of really broke the subscribers wallet. Equipment fees only go up and what do we get for that? Absolutely nothing. I do love how if I buy a receiver outright, I still have to pay a leasing fee. The cost of my equipment is more then my programming so the notion that the lack of sports is keeping our bills down is preposterous.

I'd wager with sports, Dish would land more subscribers & then be able to negotiate better deals with content providers. Then I could see us possibly saving some money.

First you don't pay a leasing fee. There is no receiver fee on the first receiver owned or not, there is a DVR fee or with the Hopper a Whole home fee. Then the equipment fee's are Mirroring, with all those fees being tied to a service, not leasing.

As for the RSN's in NY - DISH decided they were not going the surcharge route at that time, and were not going to pass on the very high cost of the NY RSN's to all subscribers. With Direct TV now charging some people more than others, DISH could follow and carry the NY RSN's. That remains to be seen. Often forgotten when comparing prices are those 5 million customers who pay $3 over the package price with Direct TV and by their own words that fee is not enough, and it could expand. I'm not blaming Direct TV at all - they are known as the sports leader and made the business decision to carry the RSN's and deal with the costs. DISH took another business route. But even Direct TV has backed off a little with sports, not carrying the PAC 12.
 
I'd pay, and happily...

After years without our RSNs here in NYC, I face yet another Hockey season with nothing until network broadcasts begin in the latter half of the season. Yeah, I know, I can switch to Direct TV, but I've got two EHDs full of movies that go "poof" if I change from Dish. If Charlie charged an additional $5 or $10 a month so I could get MSG, MSG2 and Sports Channel, I'd smile all the way to the mailbox with my check (actually, I'm on direct pay, but you get the idea). The preseason will be starting soon, as will my calls to customer service, pointing out that I'm paying for something I don't get. Usually they throw me $10 a month off my bill for the rest of the NHL season, but it's not what I want. Keep the money, give me hockey.

For the record, my team is the NY Rangers, who have the great misfortune of being owned by James Dolan who also just happens to own Cablevision, which provides cable in much of the NY/NJ area. He doesn't like Charlie, and Charlie doesn't like him. And another year goes by without hockey.

Go Rangers. <sigh.>

Greenwood Luke
 
If I recall correctly "back then" it was widely publicized that Charlie offered YE$ to name their own price for Dish to carry the channel a la carte and YE$ could have 100% of subscriber fee for anyone that subscribed, but YE$ said NO DEAL, they wanted wider distribution so all subs would pay even if they don't watch. Never been a deal since. Since then $NY and M$G have gone away too.

Wow never knew that...thats proving a point right there...I wonder if any company would even think of doing such a thing now a days???
 
It could be called a Unicorn Fee, but paying a monthly fee on owned equipment is still a bs "because we can" fee.

I'm not discounting the "because we can" factor - BUT - Dish like all the carriers do have to provide, maintain, and upgrade software for your DVR on your owned receiver to work. If you can provide your own DVR software that might be different. The Mirror fee at the least partly goes to the programmers. This was discussed many years ago, and when equipment is providing a separate way to watch different programming on a another TV, there is a fee involved to programmers. If you simply can watch the same programming at the same time on both TV's there is no fee. (Plus would be very hard to regulate) The Whole Home fee, at least part of is much closer to because we can. It probably helps cover the cost of the technology, but still......

TIVO charges what it does for it's services for some of the same reasons. They provide the guide, the software, etc... but you own the unit.
 
I'm not discounting the "because we can" factor - BUT - Dish like all the carriers do have to provide, maintain, and upgrade software for your DVR on your owned receiver to work. If you can provide your own DVR software that might be different. The Mirror fee at the least partly goes to the programmers. This was discussed many years ago, and when equipment is providing a separate way to watch different programming on a another TV, there is a fee involved to programmers. If you simply can watch the same programming at the same time on both TV's there is no fee. (Plus would be very hard to regulate) The Whole Home fee, at least part of is much closer to because we can. It probably helps cover the cost of the technology, but still......

TIVO charges what it does for it's services for some of the same reasons. They provide the guide, the software, etc... but you own the unit.
Good post. Thinking of the TIVO model, I wonder if it would be feasible for Dish to give a "lifetime subscription" option for owned receivers just as TIVO does. Such as, normal purchase price of a DVR is $200 (but you pay the monthly DVR/receiver fee), or $500 with lifetime service would remove the monthly fee. I'm sure that would just generate a new round of complaints though.
 
Good post. Thinking of the TIVO model, I wonder if it would be feasible for Dish to give a "lifetime subscription" option for owned receivers just as TIVO does. Such as, normal purchase price of a DVR is $200 (but you pay the monthly DVR/receiver fee), or $500 with lifetime service would remove the monthly fee. I'm sure that would just generate a new round of complaints though.


That's not a bad idea but I can't imagine Dish ever doing that. I just see them having issues keeping accounts straight and getting the billing right. They seem to have enough problems the way it is now with knowing if a customer owns or leases their receiver.
 
Not a bad idea! Scherrman makes a good point - You would want some kind of proof you own the unit for sure..... and the paid lifetime fee should be transferable as TIVO is. The downside to doing that is what happens if the unit dies - often these lifetime things are not transferred to another unit, lifetime means of the unit, not the subscriber.
 
That's why I would never own a TIVO with lifetime subscription. My luck with electronics dictates that I would barely get 2-3 years use out of it before it died. And my understanding is that the TIVO lifetime sub is tied to the unit?

One benefit for Dish to offer this though would be another way to lock a subscriber in for the long haul without requiring a contract.
 
That's not a bad idea but I can't imagine Dish ever doing that. I just see them having issues keeping accounts straight and getting the billing right. They seem to have enough problems the way it is now with knowing if a customer owns or leases their receiver.


not to mention, there is absolutely no incentive to own your equipment anymore....

if it fails, they charge you to replace it. if you do not own it, they will replace it for just the cost of shipping.
 
Lifetime subscription on a TiVo pays for itself in 20 months (assuming you have multiple receivers like me.

For single receivers it is 27 months.

TiVo loves you pay every month guys!
 
I love how people get all riled up about paying for sports. For all those that complain about paying for sports channels that you never watch, do you ever think about how sports fans pay for channels you may watch but they don't? Oh of course not. Paying for things you may not get a benefit from is a part of life so deal with it. If Dish did offer RSNs in a market like NY, I'm sure they would pick up quite a few subscribers & maybe they wouldn't have to raise rates as much next time to compensate for the loss of subscribers.

I am sure the channels I would watch are a whole lot cheaper.
 
The whole sports circus is out of control. I see a day when none of it is free, example, Over The Air. The players make entirely too much money. The average wage earning dad can't afford to take his kid to a football game. Some day it's all going to come crashing down.
20+ years still waiting
stadiums are still full
 

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

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)