Newscorp Buys Into YES Network

[NotMe546]

Why should Dish (or any company) be forced to risk its equipment at a consumer's house if there is a chance it might lose it all? That is why the credit check is important. If you have bad credit you can still get Dish if you buy your equipment up front and prepay for your Dish service.

Utility deposits have been around for decades. This is not a new thing.

Dish doesn't lose the money the subs do. You ever hear of back charges.
I still say put all sports in a separate package so I'm not subsidizing for the few who want it. Just like in the outside world if you choose to pay the over priced ticket prices and go to a game that's your choice.
I bet the dolans see the writing on the wall and they know something like this is coming and they don't want to be the only one losing money.

 

[The Fat Man]

Someone asked about markets other than NY where Dish isn't carrying one or more RSNs. A thread just popped up about one- Los Angeles. Dish customers who want to see Lakers games this season are out of luck. I don't think that's the only other market where that's the case, though. Buffalo is missing at least one RSN, if I recall correctly. I'm sure someone here can chime in with a comprehensive list.

Yes, but in LA's case, this RSN is a start up. They have the Lakers, but that's it. I really don't see the need for more than two RSNs per market. Even in NYC with two MLB and NBA franchises and three NHL franchises. With alt feeds the need for a Yankees owned channel, Mets owned channel, and two Madison Square Garden channels is overkill.

 

[NotMe546]

Yes, but in LA's case, this RSN is a start up. They have the Lakers, but that's it. I really don't see the need for more than two RSNs per market. Even in NYC with two MLB and NBA franchises and three NHL franchises. With alt feeds the need for a Yankees owned channel, Mets owned channel, and two Madison Square Garden channels is overkill.

In NY it's just another way for the dolans to bend you over.

 

[mike123abc]

Dish doesn't lose the money the subs do. You ever hear of back charges.

If they have bad credit there is a chance they will just move away with the equipment or trash it. Who cares about another bad notice on your credit report from Dish if it is the least of the problems on your credit report. If the credit card is over the limit they will not allow Dish to collect the charge back.

I know people that fall in this category. They change cell phone numbers pretty much every month to avoid debt collectors calling (prepaid cells). They really could care less what debt they have. As long as their pay is not garnished, they just work the system.

 

[gadgtfreek]

Dish doesn't lose the money the subs do. You ever hear of back charges.
I still say put all sports in a separate package so I'm not subsidizing for the few who want it. Just like in the outside world if you choose to pay the over priced ticket prices and go to a game that's your choice.
I bet the dolans see the writing on the wall and they know something like this is coming and they don't want to be the only one losing money.

All sports, few who want it? You guys are laughable. I realize Im going back to Dish, where the majority of the posters here claim to hate sports (whatever) and live in la-la dish is saving me money land, but you need to make note of the top shows on Monday night and Saturday (cough, ESPN Football, cough).

Granted Im not concerned as much about RSN's, but all of you that think ESPN is not watched by many, you are wrong. Love em or hate em, they continue to lock sports up and spend money, which means higher prices for providers, and the chance of losing subs if you cant make a deal.

 

[NotMe546]

All sports, few who want it? You guys are laughable. I realize Im going back to Dish, where the majority of the posters here claim to hate sports (whatever) and live in la-la dish is saving me money land, but you need to make note of the top shows on Monday night and Saturday (cough, ESPN Football, cough).

Granted Im not concerned as much about RSN's, but all of you that think ESPN is not watched by many, you are wrong. Love em or hate em, they continue to lock sports up and spend money, which means higher prices for providers, and the chance of losing subs if you cant make a deal.

Think about it only a small percent of Americans that go to games. Yes in NY they do sell out games but it is still only a small percent of NY's population. I know more die hard fans that will not go back to game cause of how much it cost.

So I for one would say bend those same people over at home at let see what happens.

How many threads we have about people looking for ways to save money on the tv bill not spend more.

Like I said before the dolans see the writing on wall.
Also I'm glad when Charlie does stand up to these bullies.

 

[Sean Mota]

Yes, but in LA's case, this RSN is a start up. They have the Lakers, but that's it. I really don't see the need for more than two RSNs per market. Even in NYC with two MLB and NBA franchises and three NHL franchises. With alt feeds the need for a Yankees owned channel, Mets owned channel, and two Madison Square Garden channels is overkill.

This is the way it was until YES and Mets decided to create their own channel. it is all about greed and not the fan. This is why I do not care.

 

[Tampa8]

All sports, few who want it? You guys are laughable. I realize Im going back to Dish, where the majority of the posters here claim to hate sports (whatever) and live in la-la dish is saving me money land, but you need to make note of the top shows on Monday night and Saturday (cough, ESPN Football, cough).

Granted Im not concerned as much about RSN's, but all of you that think ESPN is not watched by many, you are wrong. Love em or hate em, they continue to lock sports up and spend money, which means higher prices for providers, and the chance of losing subs if you cant make a deal.

You really don't get it, and/or are stuck into one way of thinking. While I may not have said all sports, I do think because overall it costs so much compared to other programming, I can see where it should be treated like any other premium services. Make it separate. If you are correct, and there are that many who want it, they will pay for it separately. Dish offered that to MSG and SNY, and generally to any RSN, and what a shock, no one would do it. Dish offered they could charge whatever they felt they needed to. The RSN's are well aware they would have to cut their prices if people saw what it cost, and worse, many would no get it at all.
ESPN may be the exception, because it has much more than just sport events, such as news and shows like PTI and ATH. I can understand that being in the package.
It's also tired, and old to keep posting that Dish is not less. They are and has been demonstrated over and over.

 

[HanoverPretzel]

Why should Dish (or any company) be forced to risk its equipment at a consumer's house if there is a chance it might lose it all?

Cost of doing business. Cable companies do it. Why should Dish get away with doing less?

 

[HanoverPretzel]

All sports, few who want it? You guys are laughable. I realize Im going back to Dish, where the majority of the posters here claim to hate sports (whatever) and live in la-la dish is saving me money land, but you need to make note of the top shows on Monday night and Saturday (cough, ESPN Football, cough).

Granted Im not concerned as much about RSN's, but all of you that think ESPN is not watched by many, you are wrong. Love em or hate em, they continue to lock sports up and spend money, which means higher prices for providers, and the chance of losing subs if you cant make a deal.

Agreed. Sports is the A1 driver of cable and satellite subscriptions. It's why many people hooked up to a pay television service for the first time way back when. I don't think we'd see over all cable and satellite penetration at even half the level it's at today if not for ESPN and regional sports networks. Sports are only becoming more important, because people now can get TV shows a thousand different ways without cable/satellite, but sports are something people really want to see live, and many times streaming packages specifically block out the home team, so you must have a television package and it must have the channels that air your team's games.

Also, increasingly, teams are moving more and more games to their RSNs and off over the air television, because penetration levels for cable and satellite are so high. You can't even go back to whatever you did in the 70s and 80s, because less games are available over the air.

And these cable games get ratings. I was reading something recently about ESPN signing a long-term deal to telecast the new college football playoff system that starts up in a couple years. One of the reasons they did it, according to the article, was that ESPN's telecast of the national college football championship one year was *the highest rated cable show of all-time*.

And, no, I will not pay for a premium add-on to watch my teams. I'm already paying for the regular programming package to watch my teams. That and the news channel I like are the reason I pay Dish at all. Why should I pay for some base package I don't watch much of and could easily find alternatives to and then pay for a sports package on top of it? Directv or Comcast here I come if Dish pulls that crud, and I won't be alone.

 

[Tampa8]

And you're another one that just does not get it. It wouldn't be just Dish but some are so fixated they don't see it. And the package you pay for now would be reduced in price. Want an opinion beyond what is being posted here?

http://www.engadget.com/2012/11/22/big-ten-network-carriage-agreements-main-motivator-for-conferenc/

I quote "The economics of sports networks on cable television is well documented -- the majority pay so that the vocal minority may watch."

EXACTLY.

 

[NotMe546]

And you're another one that just does not get it. It wouldn't be just Dish but some are so fixated they don't see it. And the package you pay for now would be reduced in price. Want an opinion beyond what is being posted here?

http://www.engadget.com/2012/11/22/big-ten-network-carriage-agreements-main-motivator-for-conferenc/

I quote "The economics of sports networks on cable television is well documented -- the majority pay so that the vocal minority may watch."

EXACTLY.

Time has come for sports to be carried in premium packages, so the whiners can really whine.

[h=1]Top 7 Ways to Deal with Whiners[/h]

 

[HanoverPretzel]

And you're another one that just does not get it. It wouldn't be just Dish but some are so fixated they don't see it. And the package you pay for now would be reduced in price. Want an opinion beyond what is being posted here?

http://www.engadget.com/2012/11/22/big-ten-network-carriage-agreements-main-motivator-for-conferenc/

I quote "The economics of sports networks on cable television is well documented -- the majority pay so that the vocal minority may watch."

EXACTLY.

That's the economics of all cable television networks. The majority of people don't watch FOX News, but they still have to pay for it. Same with the Lifetime channel. It's not just sports. But the idea is that total package prices are brought down because the channels can ask for less per subscriber because they have more potential viewers to entice advertisers with. If only people who specifically subscribe to a channel can watch, it's total viewship numbers, actual and potential, would massive drop, so they'd ask for a ton more money per person. In the end, you'd pay more to get fewer channels.

 

[NotMe546]

That's the economics of all cable television networks. The majority of people don't watch FOX News, but they still have to pay for it. Same with the Lifetime channel. It's not just sports. But the idea is that total package prices are brought down because the channels can ask for less per subscriber because they have more potential viewers to entice advertisers with. If only people who specifically subscribe to a channel can watch, it's total viewship numbers, actual and potential, would massive drop, so they'd ask for a ton more money per person. In the end, you'd pay more to get fewer channels.

Bad example I don't watch either, nor do I pay for them. Which is the way it should be.

 

[dare2be]

That's the economics of all cable television networks. The majority of people don't watch FOX News, but they still have to pay for it. Same with the Lifetime channel. It's not just sports.

Fox News and Lifetime are drops in the bucket compared to sports networks. The fact that sports channels are multiple times more expensive than the average basic channel is the reason for the proposal to put sports in its own premium tier.

If only people who specifically subscribe to a channel can watch, it's total viewship numbers, actual and potential, would massive drop, so they'd ask for a ton more money per person. In the end, you'd pay more to get fewer channels.

Actually, the only subscribers who would pay more for less channels would be the subscribers to the sports tier. The sports channels would have to raise their prices to account for the loss of potential viewership. Basically, sports channel subscribers would end up paying what they should have been paying for their sports all along, without having it heavily subsidized by non-sports fans. Then they might wake up to the fact that sports programming costs are ballooning out of control.

Look at AT120 and AT120+. The only major difference between the two (besides the $5 price) is that AT120+ adds the RSNs. Why not rename AT200 to AT200+ and create a new AT200 that is $5 cheaper without RSNs? Same for AT250. That would appease the sports and non-sports fans alike.

 

[The Fat Man]

Just keep in mind when bringing up items such as FOX News, that for every FOX News hater there is an equal number MSNBC haters. And it's the same vice versa. News networks are nowhere in the same arena as sports. With sports not everyone is wanting to pay for them. Sports are a love them or hate them situation.

 

[HanoverPretzel]

Fox News and Lifetime are drops in the bucket compared to sports networks. The fact that sports channels are multiple times more expensive than the average basic channel is the reason for the proposal to put sports in its own premium tier.

Right, but there are more non-sports channels than sports channels, and the sports channels tend to get better ratings. I mean for every $2.00 sports channel the non-sports fan "subsidizes", there are probably 10 20cent channels that consist of reality television, reruns of scripted shows that no one even liked when they were new, and old B-movies that the people who have the stuff solely or primary for sports "subsidize". My guess is that sports fare is less than 50% of the total channel cost, but accounts for more than 50% of the subs and the ratings- in general terms, that is, since it's possible that Dishes aggressive approach to RSN negotiations and such may mean it has less sports fans as a percentage of total subscribers than a company like Directv that aggressive pursues sports fans, or cable, which is the default TV option for most people in areas where cable is available who don't specifically seek out a Dish for one reason or another.

I don't think sports fans are going to like the premium tier stuff. One company like Dish would implement it first, and take a huge hit. Let's say they lose half their subscribers, but the remaining subscribers have half the bill because they have no sports. But, wait, that means that the remaining channels take a big hit on ratings and advertising revenue, and Dish only gets half the income, so the channels increase their rates and Dish charges the same amount, give or take. Except you now don't have sports.

Look at AT120 and AT120+. The only major difference between the two (besides the $5 price) is that AT120+ adds the RSNs. Why not rename AT200 to AT200+ and create a new AT200 that is $5 cheaper without RSNs? Same for AT250. That would appease the sports and non-sports fans alike.

Because that's not the way television works. They'd just keep the price of AT200 the same and charge $5 extra for the theoretical AT200+. When have you ever seen a television provider drop the price of anything for any reason? Also, they might run into contractual issues with the RSNs, who probably have negotiated deals that they are in AT200 and AT250 by default. Dish might have to wait and try to renegotiate with RSNs one by one as their contracts expire, and you can bet a good number would bulk and Dish would just pull them until the end of time.

I think you "no sports" people are really just sticking it to sports fans with your proposals, and in the end if implemented, they wouldn't wind up helping you as much as you think either. It'd be a lose-lose for everyone.

 

[dare2be]

Right, but there are more non-sports channels than sports channels, and the sports channels tend to get better ratings.

But not 10x better ratings...not even 2x better ratings, at 5-10x the price. The numbers don't support your argument. The sports channels are overpriced compared to the ratings:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/114024674/All-Cable-Ranker-Week-of-11-12-12

I think you "no sports" people are really just sticking it to sports fans with your proposals, and in the end if implemented, they wouldn't wind up helping you as much as you think either. It'd be a lose-lose for everyone.

The only one "sticking" it to anyone is the sports channels with bidding wars over record-breaking TV broadcast deals. The "no sports" people would just prefer the sticking be confined to the people that actually watch those channels, not to everyone.

 

[Tampa8]

If you still are blind to the Sports carriage problem, yet another article.

"Some estimates peg sports programming as accounting for half of a typical pay-TV bill"

[url]http://www.tvweek.com/blogs/tvbizwire/2012/11/liberty-chairman-john-malone-c.php




[/URL]

 

[PTVC]

I think you "no sports" people are really just sticking it to sports fans with your proposals, and in the end if implemented, they wouldn't wind up helping you as much as you think either. It'd be a lose-lose for everyone.

So, there are more sports fans that subscribe than non-sports fans?