sick of disputes

[anex80]

Only the leagues of various sports seem to not get the picture. Especially the NFL.

The NFL is getting closer. This year you can stream all international games on Twitter, NFL Network and NFL Redzone will be coming to PSVue, and the base Sunday Ticket package will include streaming. I also read somewhere that streaming only options will be more widely available this year, though some restrictions will still apply.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[STDog]

James Long has a historical pricing chart for Dish at the link below. With all the blackouts and disputes I would expect those lines to be much flatter than they are.

Look how much steeper AEP is though.

I expect the AT packages would look more like that if not for Dish's hard stances.

 

[STDog]

DISH really needs to stop the looped video presentation of the Tribune Broadcasting dispute. I believe we already get their point of view, it's like beating a dead horse.

Did Tribune pull the crawl off their broadcasts? Take it down from the station websites?

Nope. Then Dish won't either.

 

[Blackhawks]

Did Tribune pull the crawl off their broadcasts? Take it down from the station websites?

Nope. Then Dish won't either.

I'm actually watching the White Sux on WGN broadcast via WPWR tonight and haven't seen the crawl since Cubs/Sux Game on Thursday.

NFL Network has started a crawl now too.

 

[Tampa8]

Fox 61 Hartford still has it. Don't know about CW 20.

 

[ChadT41]

So, their costs do go up every year, their contracts are detailed with increases each year. Not all are like that however, we will not know which ones, except ESPN. We know ESPN.
To say everyone's increase was the same this year, DTV had $8 increases, plus adding the RSN fee to more areas and raising it in others, while also raising the receiver fees from $6.50 to $7. So that is a terrible comparison. It's obvious that some have higher increases than others.
Now why are prices in line with each other. Well, my bet is most providers contracts have the clause that will match what another provider gets with stations. So the harder Dish fights, the more DTV or Comcast benefit from lower prices.

 

[EddieZ]

What were the Dish profits last quarter? Or the quarter before that? Or the one before that? Billions, right? Really tough to buy argument that Dish is doing everything they can to protect the little guy when their profits are obscenely high.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Tampa8]

What were the Dish profits last quarter? Or the quarter before that? Or the one before that? Billions, right? Really tough to buy argument that Dish is doing everything they can to protect the little guy when their profits are obscenely high.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That isn't how you measure that, you can't tie more profit to just how much more subscribers were charged business does not work that way. How much per subscriber profits went up was not nearly as much as profits overall increased. It came from other sources too including likely things like fuel savings, maybe loans paid off, any number of things. Some business simply invest better and manage money better. That all goes into profits.
And what exactly is obscenely high? I can see that profits is a bad thing to you and you don't really understand them. Does DISH put those profits back into the business? In many ways, satellites and satellite launches, new receivers and technology, what appears to be trying to get into the wireless business or partner with one, and on and on. I see red flags when the argument turns to someone or some company making too much profit.
And with all that, and all the arguments, no matter what other "facts" are used, I and many other subscribers are saving alot, in my case $26 a month over the same programming, same number of rooms, very nearly the same amount of tuners another words very comparable services between DISH and Directv. YES, DISH does have a path where the "Little Guy" can save money and not even have to sacrifice programming they want. You can too.

You would have a case about profits if there were frequent satellite outages, if the service was becoming unreliable, if there were only old very outdated receivers being used. If those profits were not being plowed back to continually improve the product and maintain it.

 

[STDog]

And what exactly is obscenely high?

I've never got an answer to that question.

It always seems to depend on the commenter's opinion of the company.

 

[lparsons21]

obscenely high is the term used when someone wants something cheaper. Or in the case of some, any profits at all!

I just sent an email to my local Raycom Media station managers telling them my opinion, which is they are broadcast stations and deserve exactly zero from the cable/sat providers. I also told them that if they feel they should be paid for their free licensed content then they should become true cable station providers instead.

Of course they don't see it that way!

But I got to thinking about this a bit. There is so much to watch on so many channels that I'm generally at least a week behind in watching almost any series, many times much more behind than that. So even if I lose CBS & The CW for a bit, which is the stations in contention here, I won't be missing so much that I won't be able to find plenty to watch. Especially over the summer months.

And carrying on a bit further, since I signed up for the Flex Pack, I could drop the locals completely off that and use that $10/month for getting them all anyway. Here's how:

1. Use OTA for those locals I can get with the indoor antenna. That's ABC and Fox. Cost $0
2. Use Hulu Plus to get FreeForm (that's in a $10 pack too), and NBC. Cost $8-$12 depending on ad tolerance.
3. Get CBS All Access. Cost $7

So for $15/month I could get essentially what's in the "Local Pack" and "Variety Pack" which would cost $20/month.

Hmmm..... that's looking pretty good now that I type it!

Sent from my samus using Tapatalk

 

[rvvaquero]

If a company has no competition and is able to charge as it pleases for a service or product; if that company has a profit margin which is three or four times what other multi-billion dollar companies are enjoying; if that company delivers a failed, defective product or service; then I might consider their profits as obscene.

However, just because a company has a billion dollar profit doesn't make it obscene. The amount of profit is all relative to the amount of investment and the degree of risk and the atmosphere in the industry. If you want to talk obscene, you have to talk comparatively and deal in percentages. JMO

 

[Tampa8]

obscenely high is the term used when someone wants something cheaper. Or in the case of some, any profits at all!

That's the red flag I was referring to....

 

[ChadT41]

For me, a little over $10/month/sub does not constitute obscene profits.

 

[Troch77]

I don't really care what the profits are.
The issue that comes up for me , is when I feel his Profit/ Customers relationship ratio is not balanced.

Is he at that point? IMO he's close to that point where you have to ask yourself why do I have to spend more money every year, when he gets to make more money every year?

That's the only red flag I see.

When in one sentence he blames economic crisis, and Network stronghold, but yet his quarterly reports don't show that at all.

No one gives a crap what he makes, I'm just tired of taking these price increases for the sole purpose of Higher profit, and Less channels and less Quality service.
Again only my opinion.




Samsung Galaxy S6 Active

 

[Troch77]

For me, a little over $10/month/sub does not constitute obscene profits.

When you put it that way sure.
But what do you think I make off of a customer at the restaurant off a $20 steak?
Try $3-5 depending on market price for beef at the time.
And let's just say, If I don't like the price do you think I could just stop serving beef?
Absolutely not, Unless I want to lose customers.
There are times I had to go without profit on beef, Just because the prices were so bad.

That comes out of my pocket.


Difference is I don't have 13.5 million customers giving me $10 a month free and clear.

So when you are losing customers, and dropping services, that means now your not paying for these channels any longer, which means your spending less.

And now you are getting no money from 281,000 customers.

So one has to wonder.

And I don't want to hear how much it costs to add a customer, Because it doesn't cost anothing close to what a customer pays.
I paid $1800 this year with dish as a first year customer under a promo.
They made a lot more than $10.


Samsung Galaxy S6 Active

 

[sam_gordon]

So the harder Dish fights, the more DTV or Comcast benefit from lower prices.

Here's where I don't follow that though. These agreements are generally 3 year, right? So what happens if DTV or Comcast signs their contract in year 'x'. Dish's contract expires in year 'x+1'. So DTV/Comcast won't really benefit from Dish's negotiation. Also, these contracts aren't public, right? So how do we know:
A) Dish, Direct, Comcast, etc are all paying the same amount?
B) There's a clause that what one MVPD pays the others pay also?

I also told them that if they feel they should be paid for their free licensed content then they should become true cable station providers instead.

Let's not let facts get in the way. With the exception of the local news, locals pay for their content (INCLUDING to their network). They also pay yearly fees to the FCC for use of the spectrum, plus had to pay to purchase the spectrum (I doubt many license owners now are the same as when the FCC handed out the spectrum originally).

 

[ChadT41]

Yes, a lot of the contracts will have a clause to match rates. So directv signs in year X for $x amount of dollars, but Dish signs and gets a better deal due to negotiations, then if DTV has that clause, their rates got down to Dish's y rate.

 

[lparsons21]

Absolutely, they have to pay for all of that. And they had to pay for all of that when they made the business decision to be a free broadcast station and dependent on ads for income. If that now is not the business model they want to use, then they are free to take down the antennas and become a cable type channel.

If they choose not to do that, then they should suffer the consequences of their business decision. Let's face it, other than the local news and weather, the broadcast model is bringing nothing more to the table than is a channel like USA. Yet these days they are charging more than most cable channels do.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[sam_gordon]

Absolutely, they have to pay for all of that. And they had to pay for all of that when they made the business decision to be a free broadcast station and dependent on ads for income. If that now is not the business model they want to use, then they are free to take down the antennas and become a cable type channel.

And yet, ESPN, which charges almost as much as the local stations (in a single market combined) ALSO relies on advertising.

If they choose not to do that, then they should suffer the consequences of their business decision. Let's face it, other than the local news and weather, the broadcast model is bringing nothing more to the table than is a channel like USA. Yet these days they are charging more than most cable channels do.

And which has more viewers? The cable channels or the locals?

Again, LiL allowed sat subscriptions to EXPLODE. Take away all the local channels in a market and see what happens to subscriptions.

 

[Troch77]

Again, LiL allowed sat subscriptions to EXPLODE. Take away all the local channels in a market and see what happens to subscriptions.

Well Charlie is working on that right now. LOL



Samsung Galaxy S6 Active