Sinclair CEO warns Dish: Agree to deal or risk becoming irrelevant

ChadT41

ChadT41

THE BEST THERE HAS EVER BEEN
Pub Member / Supporter
Apr 20, 2014
11,061
4,445
Mesa, Az
That’s on top of their current $7.62/subscriber. Plus any other expenses on other sports/channels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pattykay
navychop

navychop

Member of the Month - July 2014!
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 20, 2005
54,309
19,589
Northern VA
A lot to be saved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: pattykay
S

sam_gordon

SatelliteGuys Pro
May 21, 2009
2,332
1,140
Lexington, ky
That’s on top of their current $7.62/subscriber. Plus any other expenses on other sports/channels.
What's your point? Let's say they increase the rate $.50. That's a 6.5% increase. As one of their customers, that doesn't bother me.

The bottom line is people continue to pay. Yes, more folks are cutting the cord, but many still pay. It's like ticket prices at Disney. Why should they drop costs if folks are willing to pay?
 
mwdxer1

mwdxer1

SatelliteGuys Pro
Nov 3, 2015
1,658
1,488
Seaside Oregon
'The CEO of Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. remains confident that the TV broadcaster has the advantage against Dish Network Corp. as the companies continue to negotiate an agreement to end a prolonged blackout of Sinclair's regional sports networks.''

Sinclair CEO warns Dish: Agree to deal or risk becoming irrelevant

I think as sports channels keep going up, the programmers will be forced to put them in sports packages. The rest of us just do not want to pay for them. Let the person who wants them, like my Brother In Law, buy them.
 
Bobby

Bobby

Publican
Supporting Founder
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 7, 2003
64,229
17,283
Rohnert Park, CA
I think as sports channels keep going up, the programmers will be forced to put them in sports packages. The rest of us just do not want to pay for them. Let the person who wants them, like my Brother In Law, buy them.
But the problem us that the sports programmers want everyone to pay for them irregardless of whether they want them or not.
 
dare2be

dare2be

SatelliteGuys God
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 15, 2011
12,663
7,531
FL
OK. $0.36 + 35%. $0.48. Hey, wadda you know, you've almost gotten up to 50 cents per month. Wow. That might force me to give up satellite.
Small picture. Multiply that by all the media conglomerates who think they can spend recklessly and expect consumers to eat it, and you can see why our costs go up by $5/month or more every year. Unsustainable welfare model supporting fiscal irresponsibility.
 
ChadT41

ChadT41

THE BEST THERE HAS EVER BEEN
Pub Member / Supporter
Apr 20, 2014
11,061
4,445
Mesa, Az
Because customers are not willing to pay anymore, which is why streaming has boomed. Obvious answer.
 
mwdxer1

mwdxer1

SatelliteGuys Pro
Nov 3, 2015
1,658
1,488
Seaside Oregon
If you really expect Dish to cut prices, you haven't been around here very long. In addition, sooner or later it will be a channel YOU want that is getting cut, and then you will be the one whining. It's easy for people to say "I don't watch channel x, so get rid of it!", but then there would be no channels left.

If all of the Sports channels were in a separate package, the cost would be much lower, so Dish would probably be less apt to raise prices as often too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheKrell
Bobby

Bobby

Publican
Supporting Founder
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 7, 2003
64,229
17,283
Rohnert Park, CA
If all of the Sports channels were in a separate package, the cost would be much lower, so Dish would probably be less apt to raise prices as often too.
But Disney doesn’t want ESPN in a separate package. Fox doesn’t want FoxSports in a separate package. Sinclair doesn’t want their RSNs in a separate package. They all want their programming in a package that every subscriber pays for. They get their highest payout that way. They hold their other channels hostage to force that issue.
 
S

sam_gordon

SatelliteGuys Pro
May 21, 2009
2,332
1,140
Lexington, ky
Small picture. Multiply that by all the media conglomerates who think they can spend recklessly and expect consumers to eat it, and you can see why our costs go up by $5/month or more every year. Unsustainable welfare model supporting fiscal irresponsibility.
Because customers are not willing to pay anymore, which is why streaming has boomed. Obvious answer.
But people are still willing to pay the higher rates. Sure, many have left for streaming. But there's still enough paying to keep MVPDs in business. Do you both subscribe to Dish? Do you get ESPN? If so, then you're part of the problem. Like I said, it's like Disney ticket prices... they keep going up but people keep going. So what would the motivation be to lower costs? Shouldn't a business (any business) try to make as much money as they can? Or do you really expect TPTB to say "nope, this is enough, we don't need to make more."?
 
rvvaquero

rvvaquero

SatelliteGuys Pro
Lifetime Supporter
Mar 3, 2012
2,687
3,350
Earth
The vast majority of Americans like to watch sports. That's just a fact. The content providers know this and set their prices and policies accordingly. They're not going to let DISH or any other carrier separate out their product. It's the marketplace in action.

Heck, I've been paying $15 per month more for years just to get the Golf Channel. Is the Golf Channel worth $15 per month? Probably not, most people wouldn't pay that as an ala carte option. But, to get the Golf Channel, you have to buy at least the Top 200 package. I could easily be happy with the Top 120. Where else could I get the Golf Channel, though?

Football, basketball, hockey, etc. are our modern day gladiators. If you don't believe that, just listen to the sound of the stadium when contact is made. Just look at how popular UFC is. Stupid and backward as it may sound, they are our release from our everyday life, routine, and struggles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AZ.
ChadT41

ChadT41

THE BEST THERE HAS EVER BEEN
Pub Member / Supporter
Apr 20, 2014
11,061
4,445
Mesa, Az
The fact that the number of people that are leaving continues to grow exponentially is proof that people are not willing to pay the fee. That’s how a trajectory works. And you’re right, this is the market working, which is exactly why Dish ISNT willing to pay Sinclair’s fees for FSRSNs, or NBCSC, and more as time keeps rolling on.
 
mwdxer1

mwdxer1

SatelliteGuys Pro
Nov 3, 2015
1,658
1,488
Seaside Oregon
But people are still willing to pay the higher rates. Sure, many have left for streaming. But there's still enough paying to keep MVPDs in business. Do you both subscribe to Dish? Do you get ESPN? If so, then you're part of the problem. Like I said, it's like Disney ticket prices... they keep going up but people keep going. So what would the motivation be to lower costs? Shouldn't a business (any business) try to make as much money as they can? Or do you really expect TPTB to say "nope, this is enough, we don't need to make more."?

The issue is, if I drop Dish, then I will lose a ton of channels not available elsewhere. Like others, I do not like paying the horrible rates for sports, something I do not care about at all. Period. But if I went 100% streaming, I would lose many channels. So it is a problem because the programmers refuse to sell their channels without sports. I read about all of these people that have cut the cord, and many of them watch OTA and stream movies on Demand. They just do without what they used to have. Some miss live TV and some don't. For me, 100% streaming is a long way off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kluken
Juan

Juan

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 14, 2003
28,724
6,972
Moscow Russia
What Channels are exclusive to dish?
The issue is, if I drop Dish, then I will lose a ton of channels not available elsewhere. Like others, I do not like paying the horrible rates for sports, something I do not care about at all. Period. But if I went 100% streaming, I would lose many channels. So it is a problem because the programmers refuse to sell their channels without sports. I read about all of these people that have cut the cord, and many of them watch OTA and stream movies on Demand. They just do without what they used to have. Some miss live TV and some don't. For me, 100% streaming is a long way off.

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!
 
navychop

navychop

Member of the Month - July 2014!
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 20, 2005
54,309
19,589
Northern VA
The vast majority of Americans like to watch sports. That's just a fact....

I’d like to see something supporting this idea. I don’t think the “vast majority” like to watch sports. Not even close.

Last I read, something like a third follow football regularly. Another third off and on. The remaining third, not at all.

Think about how few women follow sports. That alone cuts out “vast.”
 
S

sam_gordon

SatelliteGuys Pro
May 21, 2009
2,332
1,140
Lexington, ky
The issue is, if I drop Dish, then I will lose a ton of channels not available elsewhere. Like others, I do not like paying the horrible rates for sports, something I do not care about at all. Period. But if I went 100% streaming, I would lose many channels. So it is a problem because the programmers refuse to sell their channels without sports. I read about all of these people that have cut the cord, and many of them watch OTA and stream movies on Demand. They just do without what they used to have. Some miss live TV and some don't. For me, 100% streaming is a long way off.
In order to get the channels you want, you feel it's worth it to subsidize the sports channels. I'm sure there are people who just want the sports channels and don't care about Lifetime, History, Discovery, DIY, etc. Would I like to reduce my bill and ONLY get the channels I want? Sure. What if they go to an a la carte model, so you only get the channels you want to watch, BUT it costs you the same or more per month? Is that better? You're not subsidizing any else's viewing, but they're also not subsidizing yours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KaptainRandom
rvvaquero

rvvaquero

SatelliteGuys Pro
Lifetime Supporter
Mar 3, 2012
2,687
3,350
Earth
The fact that the number of people that are leaving continues to grow exponentially is proof that people are not willing to pay the fee. That’s how a trajectory works. And you’re right, this is the market working, which is exactly why Dish ISNT willing to pay Sinclair’s fees for FSRSNs, or NBCSC, and more as time keeps rolling on.

I don't completely agree. People are still willing to pay the fee for sports, even those who are leaving and going to streaming. It's just that right now the total overall streaming cost is less than the cost of cable or satellite. And, it should be, there is not near as much overhead involved, no satellites to launch and lease, no cables to string, and no boxes to develop and install and maintain.

Just look at those on satguys who are leaving DISH and going to streaming so they can buy their local RSN and watch their favorite teams. It's not that they are not willing to pay the fee, it's that DISH no longer offers what they want. I totally support DISH's stance. I wouldn't pay an extra penny for my RSN, Fox Southwest, for the simple reason they no longer carry the Astro's or Rocket's games. All Fox SW carries now is high school playoffs and non relevant college sports, aka the Big 12. Others feel differently.
 
ChadT41

ChadT41

THE BEST THERE HAS EVER BEEN
Pub Member / Supporter
Apr 20, 2014
11,061
4,445
Mesa, Az
I don't completely agree. People are still willing to pay the fee for sports, even those who are leaving and going to streaming. It's just that right now the total overall streaming cost is less than the cost of cable or satellite. And, it should be, there is not near as much overhead involved, no satellites to launch and lease, no cables to string, and no boxes to develop and install and maintain.

Just look at those on satguys who are leaving DISH and going to streaming so they can buy their local RSN and watch their favorite teams. It's not that they are not willing to pay the fee, it's that DISH no longer offers what they want. I totally support DISH's stance. I wouldn't pay an extra penny for my RSN, Fox Southwest, for the simple reason they no longer carry the Astro's or Rocket's games. All Fox SW carries now is high school playoffs and non relevant college sports, aka the Big 12. Others feel differently.
I would agree with you, if Directv didn’t just pay the fee, but they did and they lost 2 million+ in 2 quarters.
 
rvvaquero

rvvaquero

SatelliteGuys Pro
Lifetime Supporter
Mar 3, 2012
2,687
3,350
Earth
I would agree with you, if Directv didn’t just pay the fee, but they did and they lost 2 million+ in 2 quarters.

There's no doubt that sat and cable are losing customers. It's because streaming is cheaper, not because people are not willing to pay for sports.

All the streaming packages include sports............Hulu, Sling, YoutubeTV, DirectTV, etc.
 

Similar threads

smokey982
Replies
215
Views
27K
costanzas_wallet
costanzas_wallet
R
Replies
1
Views
949
Slamminc11
Slamminc11
P
Replies
113
Views
16K
James Long
J
Roxor
Replies
15
Views
2K
Paradox-SJ
Paradox-SJ

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

Latest posts

Top