msg and msg+ wil they give in (1 Viewer)

dan188

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Pro
Feb 2, 2009
1,441
0
Elmira, New York, United States
now that twc wouldnt give in to msgs demands will msg maby give in now that they have lost a big chunk of viewsers between twc and dish last year?? from what i have read the dispuet msg has with twc is almost identicle to what they wanted from dish and dish wouldnt give in ethier. is this a big enough hit to wake them up??
 

rapidturtle

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jun 3, 2010
517
84
North Eastern PA
This is what the providers need to start doing. Stick together and fight the networks. Show them that we are not willing to pay the high prices that they are seeking. Hopefully TWC holds out until the can get a fair deal done.
 

HanoverPretzel

SatelliteGuys Pro
Oct 6, 2006
573
0
This is what the providers need to start doing. Stick together and fight the networks. Show them that we are not willing to pay the high prices that they are seeking. Hopefully TWC holds out until the can get a fair deal done.

What about the consumers to whom the providers are still going to charge high fees to whether they carry the channels they want to watch or not?

I think the networks charge too much, too, but let's not forget that Dish makes a billion dollars a year in pure profit, and I'd imagine Directv and the big cable companies have similar profit margins. They want people to believe that when they get better deals with networks, it's to bring customer's bills down, but really it's just to pad their profit margins. They are no real customer advocates in the television space- everyone from the networks to the providers are trying to maximize their own profits, and that's what these battles are about. It's the customers who get in the middle and wind up paying without getting to see the programming they want to see.

If a provider decides to operate as a non-profit or on a slim profit margin and then gets into these battles, maybe I'll reassess my opinion.
 

osu1991

SatelliteGuys Master
Sep 4, 2004
9,905
2,339
Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
Programming is only part of their profits, I would wager most of those profits come from fees for equipment and such. Those profits go to maintaining a very expensive satellite fleet and uplink facilities nationwide to provide you with a reliable signal. Not to mention subsidizing millions of free or low cost receiver upgrades.

I would rather lose the channel than Dish, Directv or cable pay a huge increase that is going to raise the bill even more. I love sports as much as anyone and mainly I only watch football regularly. But the stand needs to be made. These costs are really getting out of hand.
 

dan188

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Pro
Feb 2, 2009
1,441
0
Elmira, New York, United States
Do you agree twc loosing msg is a biger hit than dish was. I belive they fuse is part of what they require to have msg which makes no sence to me. The only way to get msg in my area is direct tv now
 

mike123abc

Too many cables
Supporting Founder
Sep 25, 2003
23,312
1,932
Norman, OK
What about the consumers to whom the providers are still going to charge high fees to whether they carry the channels they want to watch or not?

I think the networks charge too much, too, but let's not forget that Dish makes a billion dollars a year in pure profit, and I'd imagine Directv and the big cable companies have similar profit margins.... If a provider decides to operate as a non-profit or on a slim profit margin and then gets into these battles, maybe I'll reassess my opinion.

1 billion divided by Dish's 14 million customers is $5.95/month. Not exactly a huge profit margin...
 

Tampa8

Supporting Founder
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 8, 2003
17,918
7,355
Tampa/Eastern Ct
I would say the premise this is a big blow (if TWC does not cave) is right on. I also agree it helps the Dish cause on this. I see alot of rationalization about fees being charged and does or doesn't save us any money, but you can't deny, Dish prices are lower generally with as much or more HD than other providers, not including sports of course. (That's the point) Up till now, providers have been eating some of the increase but you can only drop your profits so far. I think we are seeing other providers may have reached the limit especially on sports programming costs.
I honestly don't think Direct TV can absorb much more sports costs, compared to regular programming costs that many more watch. I do think they are looked at as the sports leader, and that is important if that is what you are known for. But at some point they have to decide do they compete with Dish prices (and perhaps some Cable prices) or have all the sports and sports packages, in HD, but have to charge more to everyone.

(To be fair, Dish had to decide if Sports prices was worth raising costs to everyone more than they wanted to. They have apparently decided no and barely competes with Direct TV in my opinion for Sports)

I will add, TWC says "MSG demanded a 53 percent price increase for their programming, which just doesn't make sense," I see no rebuttal to that statement from MSG.
In addition MSG said "All we have asked is for Time Warner Cable to value our programming in the same way as other TV providers—nothing more, nothing less," Blair said." I have bad news for MSG then, because at least one other provider also does value your programming to the tune of a 53% increase, Dish. Funny, MSG didn't mention that.....
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2398269,00.asp
 
Last edited:

HanoverPretzel

SatelliteGuys Pro
Oct 6, 2006
573
0
Programming is only part of their profits, I would wager most of those profits come from fees for equipment and such. Those profits go to maintaining a very expensive satellite fleet and uplink facilities nationwide to provide you with a reliable signal. Not to mention subsidizing millions of free or low cost receiver upgrades.

My understanding is that those are net profits-- i.e. gravy, what's left after everything is paid for. Maintenance for the uplink facilities, satellite, subsidizing receiver upgrades, etc. would all come out of things before you'd arrive at a net profit total.

I would rather lose the channel than Dish, Directv or cable pay a huge increase that is going to raise the bill even more. I love sports as much as anyone and mainly I only watch football regularly. But the stand needs to be made. These costs are really getting out of hand.

I agree with you that costs are getting out of hand. I'm just not sure I understand network costs to the providers as being the sole root cause. That's part of it, but the providers have to shoulder some of it also-- the providers are, after all, the ones who set the end price.
 

HanoverPretzel

SatelliteGuys Pro
Oct 6, 2006
573
0
1 billion divided by Dish's 14 million customers is $5.95/month. Not exactly a huge profit margin...

It does sound more reasonable when you put it that way.

However, using those figures, swallowing a cost increase of, say, fifty cents a head in the MSG area, would still leave Dish making $5.45 a person, which doesn't seem all that different from $5.95. So, there's still a case to be made that maybe Dish could strategically "cave" to, say, ESPN, and the RSNs in the areas where it has difficulty, and slice off less than half of that billion dollars.

I don't know, it's their business. I'm just saying bottom line is if I find my local RSNs or ESPNs gone, they'll have a hard time keeping me. And I'm not just some random guy, I think that's the majority of American males (and many females these days, too) who are big enough sports fans that sports is either the primary or a strong secondary reason for having a television provider in the first place.

Dish would have to beat it's competitors by an awful lot price wise on packaging to make up for no ESPN or no local sports teams' games with a lot of sports fans. And by an awful lot, I mean something like half- or more. A TV package with no sports just isn't worth much to me or to a lot of people. It's got to be so different price wise that I'd really feel the difference in my pocket book so much that I wouldn't notice that most of what I watch is gone- $5-$10 wouldn't cut it.

Play hardball when the negotiations about non-sports channels come up. ;) In fact, they can even argue with the same companies if they want. Take the Disney Channel off of Dish for a year- nay, a decade- and I wouldn't complain. ;) Why does it always have to be sports?
 

Tampa8

Supporting Founder
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 8, 2003
17,918
7,355
Tampa/Eastern Ct
I agree with you that costs are getting out of hand. I'm just not sure I understand network costs to the providers as being the sole root cause. That's part of it, but the providers have to shoulder some of it also-- the providers are, after all, the ones who set the end price.

I agree with that. At some point it becomes how much will the provider give up in profits, and still compete with other providers. If the provider is too greedy, and raised prices when it could absorb some of the programming cost increases, they may lose business. But, if they cut profits too much, they may not be able to stay in business. I will admit, I do know for 100% certain that 53% increase in programming costs is unreasonable. But I have to think so.
 

Greenwood Luke

Well-Known SatelliteGuys Member
Apr 16, 2007
27
1
Orange County, NY
The aspect of TWC v. MSG dispute, as well as the Dish v. MSG dispute that bears constant repeating is that these is not just about money. MSG (and Madison Square Garden) is controlled by the Dolan family, which just happens to control Cablevision, one of TWC's major competitors in the NYC Metro Area. The Dolans have always tried to leverage MSG as a way of luring sports fans away, whether from TWC or Dish. Even when we had MSG on Dish, two years ago, there was never any chance of getting MSG-HD without divine intervention. The MSG-HD signal was never actually broadcast over the air, and the Dolans kept it that way to avoid any situation where they would have to provide it to what they perceived as a competitor. Somehow they made peace with Direct, probably at a substantial cost. We still have sales guys from Cablevision come calling, offering the NY sports in HD. I tell them to go to hell - I find there business practices unethical at best, and will not have anything to do with subsidizing that sort of behavior.

It kills me, too, as the NY Rangers are having an excellent year!

Greenwood Luke
Warwick, NY
 

dan188

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Pro
Feb 2, 2009
1,441
0
Elmira, New York, United States
The problem is cablevision is not aviable everywhere twc is. We all don't live where we could switch if we wanted to. Twc even mentioned dish lost msg and all proiders are subject to these blackouts. Switching wont solve it as this shows. Those who left dish for twc to keep msg are in the same boat again.
 

loubon

SatelliteGuys Pro
Pub Member / Supporter
Oct 30, 2010
314
55
New Jersey
I couldn't agree with you more. Even though these stalemates cost Cablevision lost revenue they are so warped in their thinking that they probably think they are coming out ahead by limiting their competitors. Your example about them holding out on HD from Dish while they still carried MSG is a perfect example. It doesn't surprise me that Direct and FIOS probably paid an outrageous price because that was the only way they could get it from Cablevision. When I lived in their backyard on Long Island (before satellite was a real option) and there were no other choices I can tell you they were the most arogant company I have ever dealt with in any medium. I always laugh when people complain here about Dish because while they are far from perfect on their worse day they are still 10 times better to deal with than Cablevision.
 

mike123abc

Too many cables
Supporting Founder
Sep 25, 2003
23,312
1,932
Norman, OK
It does sound more reasonable when you put it that way.

However, using those figures, swallowing a cost increase of, say, fifty cents a head in the MSG area, would still leave Dish making $5.45 a person, which doesn't seem all that different from $5.95. So, there's still a case to be made that maybe Dish could strategically "cave" to, say, ESPN, and the RSNs in the areas where it has difficulty, and slice off less than half of that billion dollars.
...
Why does it always have to be sports?

There of course needs to be an incentive to be in a business. Why go to the work to provide a service if there is not any profit in it?

The issue of course is that Dish is looking at about $6/month. If you give up a buck to ESPN/MSG/FOX RSN/YES/etc that $6 goes to 0 or less pretty fast, or they have to raise prices. ESPN has pretty much stated that they plan on doubling their fee over the next few years.

Why does it always have to be sports in dispute? Well the average for most channels is in the 5 cents to 50cents range. Sports tend to be in the $2.50 to $5 range now. And if they double the sports is going to be $5-$10 range per sub per month.

At the rate is is going, eventually only sports fans will have cable/satellite. Everyone else that wants to save money will be forced off to other distribution methods like OTA or internet. When the average bill goes over $100 how many households will end up dropping? The cost of everything of course will continue to go up, but when a few channels go up at a far faster rate it makes it difficult to see the value in them after a while.
 

Islandguy43

SatelliteGuys Pro
Oct 24, 2006
2,128
0
Grand Island, NY
What you all are saying is true to an extent. However, all three of these multimillion dollar corporations have taken out numerous newspaper, television and radio advertisement at the cost of thousands of dollars, to preach that they are doing this for the benefit of the subscriber. None of them give a damn of the subscriber; and only worry about their bottom line. TWC and Dish both don't care about saving their subs money. If that had been the case; both of them would have made deals with the Dolans to provide the channels for a single subscription fee. TWC has no credibility here either, especially since they refuse to deal with the NFL Network and HD Network. Unfortunately I am stuck where I live and must have TWC if I want high speed internet. Its pretty sad when two or three bull headed individuals dictate to almost 30 million people (total dish and twc subs). Its time for the FCC to step up to plate and intervene in these type of situations, like they did when they forced the Dolans to make their HD Feeds available to FIOS and At&T Uverse.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

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

Top