Wow Dish, so you have the Pac12 Network but no RSNs...what the hell?
This corporation is a sinking ship.
This corporation is a sinking ship.
RSN's Continue to Fall - Dish drops AT&T Sportsnets
- Thread starter zippyfrog
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 45
- Views 8K
-
WELCOME TO THE NEW SERVER!
If you are seeing this you are on our new server WELCOME HOME!
While the new server is online Scott is still working on the backend including the cachine. But the site is usable while the work is being completes!
Thank you for your patience and again WELCOME HOME!
CLICK THE X IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER OF THE BOX TO DISMISS THIS MESSAGE
And?
That counter argument is also flawed. If all the RSNs only charged less than a dollar for their one channel like virtually EVERY channel does, then you'd have a point. A channel that costs 10x more than the average EVERY other channel is the reason for dropping it.
So, how long do we wait before we start hassling Dish for a price break for the missing channels? If they're so outrageously expensive (which I'm not doubting), it ought to be worth something off my nearly $150 per month.
Give ‘em a call. Maybe they’ll give you some sort of monthly credit or something. Can’t hurt….
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They charge what they charge. Content cost money.
As I said, if you can get the networks and diginets OTA, the justification for Dish over something like Pluto is hard to see. Both are just content free remixes of rerun channels.
I wouldn't have minded if the Regional Action Pack went up to $20/month (or even $30) to keep the channels on, but the RSN owners would have nothing to do with that. If the customers had a choice to pay the real cost of those channels, they would lose even more revenue and viewership than not having the channel available on a particular provider.
It isn't about how much they charge, it's about how they extort it from everyone. Nickel and dime extortion is one thing, but when the extortion is in the range of 10-20x higher than other channels, then it's an issue. The moneybags sports leagues are overbloated and the welfare pricing model is unsustainable.
It isn't about how much they charge, it's about how they extort it from everyone. Nickel and dime extortion is one thing, but when the extortion is in the range of 10-20x higher than other channels, then it's an issue. The moneybags sports leagues are overbloated and the welfare pricing model is unsustainable.
Last edited:
This is sending a message to Sinclair, for their RSN, if Dish agreed to renew or to the demands of AT&T + Roots then Sinclair could argue for their case, but I agree with Charlie that RSN's need to be Al La Carte
Just because the networks pay Sports League's big $$$ for the broadcast rights to games, which in effect helps pay for sports teams, so in essence what it is, is TV subscribers subsidizing Pro Sports Teams, even if they never watch a game
So if RSN's want Cable & Satellite Co's to carry their channels it's going to have to be by Al La Carte.
Just because the networks pay Sports League's big $$$ for the broadcast rights to games, which in effect helps pay for sports teams, so in essence what it is, is TV subscribers subsidizing Pro Sports Teams, even if they never watch a game
So if RSN's want Cable & Satellite Co's to carry their channels it's going to have to be by Al La Carte.
ALC is, of course, the most anti-consumer idea in this industry, ever. Under such a scheme, only a handful of channels would even exist for the customer to pick from, as the costs of production of just about anything would exceed what they could earn under such a bad idea.
Rather, the future seems pretty clear. Those that want content will look to DirecTV, or a robust cable company or pay streamer. Others will go the route of original programming via different combinations of Netflix, HBO Max, etc. People that just want TV to rattle around in the background will just get by with OTA and things like Pluto and STIRR. The outfit I really cannot see a future for is a pay service that has a content mix not much distinguishable from Pluto + an antenna.
Rather, the future seems pretty clear. Those that want content will look to DirecTV, or a robust cable company or pay streamer. Others will go the route of original programming via different combinations of Netflix, HBO Max, etc. People that just want TV to rattle around in the background will just get by with OTA and things like Pluto and STIRR. The outfit I really cannot see a future for is a pay service that has a content mix not much distinguishable from Pluto + an antenna.
No
There would be a line item delivery charge( standard)
Then each channel would be charged separately
So dish would charge $100 delivery charge
Then channels would be on top if that
You would get fewer channels but pay more
Shhh dont give charlie ideas
I will start by saying that I have no direct knowledge of the ATT/Dish contract. However, it is EXTREMELY common in this industry for a MFN (Most Favored Nations) clause to exist. So, if ATT agrees to accept "some" money from Dish that is less than what others are paying them, then they can only collect that amount from the other distributors as well. So by taking a low amount of money from Dish for these channels, they may actually lose more money from the other distributors than they gain by doing the deal.
Ala Carte would cost WAY more than a typical package ...
Your not going to be able to order just 5-10 channels, it will have to be thier package of Ala Carte channels, then your right back to what you have with cable or Sat.
This sounds highly unlikely. Such contract terms would be monopolistic and possibly illegal.
Ha, OK. I can assure with 100% certainty that these clauses exist in the television distribution business. There is nothing monopolistic nor illegal about it. All they are saying is, if you give someone else a better deal, we want it too. It is actually anti-monopolistic.
By the way MFN clauses exist in many industries not just this one.
A “monopoly” as the term is used in American law, is a single supplier controlling all, or most all, of the supply of a particular product.
A “MFN” clause is actually pro-consumer and has absolutely nothing to do with monopolistic practices.
A “MFN” clause is actually pro-consumer and has absolutely nothing to do with monopolistic practices.
Giving consumers the choice to buy what they want in a manner that they control is anti-consumer????
I was pleased last year when the Portland Trailblazers ended there contract with Comcast for broadcast of their games.
They were moving over to RootNW.
But when the preseason games began, found out that Dish now no longer carries RootNW.
They were moving over to RootNW.
But when the preseason games began, found out that Dish now no longer carries RootNW.
Yes. Because you make the mistake that everyone who thinks ALC is an answer makes. You assume that the content you want would be there for the buying.
It would not. Under ALC the consumer would have, at best, maybe 20 channels to choose from. Simple math. The few cents one customer who loves channel B pays for channel A, but never watches, covers part of the cost of there being a channel A in the first place, just as are the few cents the channel A loving customer pays for channel B, which she never watches. Simplified, but you get the idea. Without the wonderful system of packages, the robust content that is modern DBS/cable simply would not exist.
Five channels from one company rotating the same content is robust? I think paying for one channel instead of five would be better in the long run for consumers. Who cares if weak channels go away. Good content would still find a way to be broadcast. Besides, we already have Ala Carte. Media companies each having their own streaming service is a form of this. Want to watch Viacom/CBS content, get Paramount +, want Warner content, get HBO Max, etc. Drop, add, mix and match. This choice is one reason why cable/sat is dying.
