# Would Dish Network Really Consider Dropping ESPN?



## LazhilUT (Mar 24, 2012)

http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2013/09/05/media-journal-would-dish-network-really-consider-dropping-espn/?mod=yahoo_hs

If Dish drops ESPN and other Disney/ABC Channels...I will be gone, not ifs or buts...I watch ESPN all the time and my kid loves all the Disney channels.
Dish will experience a max exodus if this happens. Book it!


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

Never gonna happen.


----------



## pmjones (Aug 3, 2012)

Probably a more relevant question right now is what the new agreement entails (and yes, word is that there is a new agreement).

The notion that DISH would move forward without ESPN/Disney is complete nonsense. This aint AMC . . .

Would be nice to get ALL ESPN feeds in HD and include Disney Jr to the lineup. That is my hope.


----------



## Orion9 (Jan 31, 2011)

Could be, but if these channels are as expensive as they are rumored to be and they drop the price to the consumer, they could get a mass inflow as well.


----------



## gov (Jan 11, 2013)

I would like to see the ESPN group treated as a premium add-on package.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

gov said:


> I would like to see the ESPN group treated as a premium add-on package.


So would I. Hate sports.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Yup, Disney should be in the low tiers and ESPN should be a Premium.

Let the athletic supporters pay the exorbitant salaries of the jocks and stuffed shirts.

Let ESPN take the hit of being dropped for a few weeks.


----------



## Grandude (Oct 21, 2004)

gov said:


> I would like to see the ESPN group treated as a premium add-on package.


I would like to see a split. Disney and ESPN under separate contracts. I don't watch the Disney channels so why should I have to pay for them.
I would be willing to pay a small premium for the ESPN channels.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Would DISH consider dropping ESPN? Yes.
When the contract ends will ESPN be off of DISH? Most likely.
Will ESPN return to DISH? Yes.

Hopefully it is not a long drawn out battle ... but I do not expected an uninterrupted renewal process.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I will be surprised if we even lose a day.... let me check... wait... I checked the calendar... ok 9/30 falls on a Monday... which means 10/1 would be after Monday Night Football... so I suppose IF Dish played a little hardball they could let ESPN go dark from Tuesday through Thursday afternoon before the college game that night... worst case until the following Monday.

So... while I'm still betting on 0 days without ESPN... I could see a 3-6 day window here for hardball.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

A small but precious Oberman free zone!


----------



## Steeloc15 (Oct 2, 2009)

Live sports is the one thing keeping me from "cutting the cord." If Dish was to drop ESPN for any period of time that might just be the push I need to drop Dish.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

Somebody has to be the guinea pig and prove that you can be profitable without ESPN. Charlie could be gutsy enough and maverick enough to try it. But he'd lose a ton of customers like me, and it's not certain whether he'd gain as many as he lost, especially since ABC O&O are tied to the deal.


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

Curtis0620 said:


> Never gonna happen.


I would expect to see a few days of standoff on this.

The said reality is that bills are now at $100 a month for people and pay tv outlets are losing customers. There is a sweet spot for consumers in probably the $85 - $95 range and after that the cord is getting cut. So the pressure on Dish, Directv, and so forth is likely to try in vain to keep the bills at that point.

I see ESPN ONLY getting its asking price if the channels are in the 200 and above packages. This would allow Dish to free up the 120 package and keep the price in check. However, I don't see ESPN doing this and then they'll have to come back and negotiate on price in the 120 package. I see this is where the issues are going to be. But throw in also the slate of other ABC owned channels and where they fall out in the tier.

I would not be surprised at all to see a few days where ESPN goes dark to prove a point. Question is how many would switch in that short period? I don't think too many would because they'd expect it to work out.

I also wonder how much the Hopper issues enter into this with the ABC channels owned.

It's the great convergence of issues.


----------



## shadough (Dec 31, 2006)

Keep in mind, the ESPN channels are in the next level package down from the 120 package, Dish America? I believe. I currently have the bare minimum package to get my local RSN's, 120+, and paying nearly $100 just 4 that. When I started, the 120 pack (or I should say the equivalent of it) was only $19.99. Its now double that; triple w/ the + add-on. I'm seriously considering dropping down to America, to save $ and still have ESPN.

p.s., I'm assuming local channels are included in America?!?!? I hope.

edit: Doh! its actually more than double, 150% increase, after just now checking the prices.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

The primary key to all this will be (must be) the separation of ESPN from the rest of the Disney/ABC channels. It has to happen.


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

SayWhat? said:


> The primary key to all this will be (must be) the separation of ESPN from the rest of the Disney/ABC channels. It has to happen.


That is one thing that will not happen.


----------



## pfred (Feb 8, 2009)

What other channels are the Mickey Mouse Corp forcing down our throats along with ESPN? If it is just ABC family, I would be interested in package options without them both.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

I wonder just how much someone could *realistically* save on their bill if ESPN/Disney went away.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Drop a channel that carries Monday Night Football and the BCS bowls? No way.


----------



## ehilbert1 (Jan 23, 2007)

I would love to not pay for all the channels I don't watch too. I understand not wanting to pay for ESPN if you don't watch it. The truth is we all subsudize each others channels. That will not change any time soon. If it pisses you off that much.... cut the cord. It's only TV.


----------



## gov (Jan 11, 2013)

Granted, that's true for the various packages, but not really for HBO, Starz, etc.

Outfit running ESPN might want to look at bumping up # of channels to 8 to 10 (imagine the size of their archive!) and re-thinking their business plan as a premium tier service.

If half the subscribers were willing to pay triple for the ESPN package, they would be making MORE money.

If 1/10 the # of current subscribers were willing to pay 1/2 for the package, maybe ESPN management needs to contemplate how popular they really are.


----------



## ehilbert1 (Jan 23, 2007)

If you think about it those channels are really only super popular when it's football season. They do get pretty good ratings for college basketball but their bread and butter is college football. I'm willing to pay a little more so people that don't want it can get rid of it. The only thing I ask is let me do that for the 50 to 60 channels that I don't watch. Yes I know those 50 to 60 channels are probably still cheaper combined then the ESPN's. The again it might be about even.


----------



## bnewt (Oct 2, 2003)

djlong said:


> I wonder just how much someone could *realistically* save on their bill if ESPN/Disney went away.


maybe a drop in monthly price for 6 months or so & then they would raise the dvr fees again

been waiting a long time for ESPNU in hd along with ABC family. almost dropped dish over the AMC dispute, but loosing ESPN would push me to Direct or maybe even the local cable folks


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

This is where we're headed. And ESPN is the party most responsible. From a comment I posted earlier...

------------------------------
Let's do a back-of-the envelope exercise.

CBS wants 2 dollars a month. Let's say that TimeWarner caves, and by Year 4 (2016), CBS is getting 2 dollars a month. That would mean that NBC (Sunday Night Football), ABC and Fox will certainly also get 2 dollars a month. Then you have Univision, whose demographics should result in 2.50 a month, but which will settle for 2 dollars. Telemundo will be happy with 1.50 a month.

So, in 2016, you have 6 broadcast networks taking in 11.50 a month in retransmission fees. Over 12 months, * today's 100M PayTv subs, you get 13.8B a year, from PayTv subscribers to broadcast networks.

Today (2012 numbers), PayTv subs pay "just" 2B (of 43B in total in content fees) to broadcast networks.

That 2B will, within 4 years, increase to 13.8B.

From paying broadcast networks 1.67 a month in 2012, to 11.50 a month by 2016.

Do you think this is viable?
------------------------------

What's going to happen? Annual price hikes of 8%+. And most of you will continue to pay. Not because your wages will have increased (real median wages have decreased about 10% during President Obama's presidency), but because you'll spend less on food or other budget items.


----------



## ehilbert1 (Jan 23, 2007)

If it gets to exspensive I'll just drop it. Right now my wife and I can afford it. I don't mind paying for the convience our two hoppers bring. Again I will ask........ why get pissed off and let it ruin your day? It's TV!!! Why some of you let it get to you so much is beyond me. Go out and enjoy life some. Get a girlfriend or boyfriend. Go have a beer and enjoy life, Trust me it's too short and can be over in an instant.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> Drop a channel that carries Monday Night Football and the BCS bowls? No way.


And CBS was probably Sure that Time Warner could not afford to be without CBS for very Long.

ESPN (Disney that is, after Walt Disney) is probably thinking the same thing.

Start Sarcasm mode
I'm sure it will work out at least as good as the YES channel in NYC has done with Dishnetwork. Oh the total horror of no YES channel on Dish. It doesn't seem to be bothering Charley does it.
End Sarcasm mode

Is it possible that Sports is becoming a Niche market? You could turn on your local station any weekend and find plenty of sports, Once upon a time, that is.


----------



## gov (Jan 11, 2013)

I am assuming the ratio pf prices in bulk sat and cable sales is similar in the residential world, so I'll throw this out:

100 bed nursing home, nice lineup of around 30 or so D* popular channels (GSN, FNC, Disc,Sci, AMC, LMN, RFD, Food, A&E, Cooking, Spike, Big10, etc.) but no ESPN package, was around $4-5/bed some years ago. At that time, adding the ESPN set run it up to over $7/bed. 

Management did not spring for the ESPN set, and there were some long faces, but there have been less than 5 residents pop for their own satellite account to get them.

{disclaimer: demographically, the facility is skewed towards older widows, so take that for what it is}


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

TBoneit said:


> And CBS was probably Sure that Time Warner could not afford to be without CBS for very Long.
> 
> ESPN (Disney that is, after Walt Disney) is probably thinking the same thing.
> 
> ...


CBS was right... Magically it's returned right before the NFL starts and the Fall lineup.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

sigma1914 said:


> CBS was right... Magically it's returned right before the NFL starts and the Fall lineup.


Yep... that's what I was going to post. mostly summer hiatus during the CBS/Time Warner feud... coincidentally (NOT) that they agree before this Sunday's NFL lineup!

As I looked at the calendar, Dish has a week or less of a window to take ESPN off the air if they wish... but honestly... I don't think that is going to happen. The severe lack of chatter from either Dish or ESPN/Disney thus far tells me that they may have even already agreed, at least in principle, to a new contract. Otherwise I would expect to have already seen the crawls on ESPN.

The cricket-chirping, tumbleweed-blowing silence seems to be a positive indicator that Dish and ESPN will be fine.


----------



## Grandude (Oct 21, 2004)

sigma1914 said:


> Drop a channel that carries Monday Night Football and the BCS bowls? No way.


Monday night football should never have been moved to cable/satellite only. A disgrace to a national Monday night tradition.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Grandude said:


> Monday night football should never have been moved to cable/satellite only. A disgrace to a national Monday night tradition.


The move of Monday Night Football was a sign of the times. Now we're further down the road of sports being on subscription channels with only a sampling on free broadcast television. Broadcast television does all they can to charge a fee. Including moving their games to subscription channels.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

James Long said:


> The move of Monday Night Football was a sign of the times. Now we're further down the road of sports being on subscription channels with only a sampling on free broadcast television. Broadcast television does all they can to charge a fee. Including moving their games to subscription channels.


The players, coaches, agents, owners and their associated lawyers and agents all need to have their shiny new toys and cars and boats and planes, ya' know.

And the suckers, er, athletic supporters just keep feeding them coins at ever increasing rates. It will continue until the public wakes up and says enough is enough. No more. That could start by supporting efforts to keep fees down by taking programming off the air during these disputes.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

The economics of "premium" entertainment can be analyzed in the cost recovery system for the "big" stars.

A $10+ million payment to a movie star for an appearance in a movie is recovered from voluntary theater ticket sales to fans, then from dvd and on-demand video voluntary sales, then from a premium channel like HBO from voluntary subscribers, and finally, years later, from ad supported cable/broadcast airings.

A $10+ million salary to an NFL star is recovered from voluntary stadium ticket sales to sports fans and simultaneously from taxing the huddled masses charging almost all American TV viewers for ESPN and from ad supported cable/broadcast airings, then from sports packages from voluntary subscribers.

Yes, I recognize that we all pay general fees for cable and broadcast channels, but my guess is that ad revenue supports airing live sports like NBC Sunday night football and old movies, not our fees.

But *you* don't have to share the cost for my seeing expensive stars in HBO shows and movies.

And I know that Charlie shares my view on this one, but like me is trapped by a system that creates a truth, justice and The American Way natural right for all Americans to receive a tax subsidy to watch expensive NFL stars beating their brains out.

As noted by the Wall Street Cheat Sheet:



> The high cost of sports has long been an issue that Dish Chairman Charlie Ergen has vocally addressed. Walt Disney Co.'s (NYSEIS) ESPN is the most expensive of the national sports channels, and it also offers its channels as a packaged deal, which has frustrated Dish and instigated contractual disputes.
> 
> Though the pay-TV operator has yet to officially threaten Disney with a contract cut, it has expressed its willingness to drop Disney's channels if need be, with Ergen maintaining, "We're prepared to go either way."
> 
> ...But according to The Wall Street Journal, Dish challenges that argument by explaining that its ESPN programming charges account for more than 40 percent of its cost but add up to less than 20 percent of its viewing minutes. Therefore, Ergen believes Dish could potentially drop ESPN with insignificant backlash in the long run. But analysts like Barton Crockett disagree, saying, "No one is going to be a meaningful player in this industry without carrying ESPN."


If Ergen dropped the Disney package of channels tomorrow with a clear statement that he will not allow it back without putting ESPN into the AT120+ and above tiers and the Disney channels in the AT200 and above tiers, I'd pay for a second full service connection in my house to help out. And I don't need my local ABC O&O.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Kind of ironic coming from Mr MultiMillionaire Chuckie and his ever increasing DVR fees.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

SayWhat? said:


> The players, coaches, agents, owners and their associated lawyers and agents all need to have their shiny new toys and cars and boats and planes, ya' know.
> 
> And the suckers, er, athletic supporters just keep feeding them coins at ever increasing rates. It will continue until the public wakes up and says enough is enough. No more. That could start by supporting efforts to keep fees down by taking programming off the air during these disputes.


You keep feeding people in the television and movie industry. Does that make you a sucker, too?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Your subscription to satellite and cable TV is voluntary too... Anyone who thinks they pay too much for TV, should consider cutting back or cancelling the pay TV service.

Sure I wish some things cost less... but things cost what they cost... and luxury items like pay TV are things that IF they cost too much, you can cut back on them.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SayWhat? said:


> Kind of ironic coming from Mr MultiMillionaire Chuckie and his ever increasing DVR fees.


Non-DVR receivers remain available. At least DVR fees are an a la carte option ... if you don't want to pay you don't have to. Just cancel the service.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

phrelin said:


> If Ergen dropped the Disney package of channels tomorrow with a clear statement that he will not allow it back without putting ESPN into the AT120+ and above tiers and the Disney channels in the AT200 and above tiers, I'd pay for a second full service connection in my house to help out. And I don't need my local ABC O&O.


It would be a serious change for Dish. Didn't they carry BTN? And PAC12? And how many other sports channels have they added over the previous few years? Dropping ESPN only makes sense if they plan to drop all of the other "dedicated" sports channels as well. You aren't going to get a serious college football fan to subscribe to your service without ESPN, no matter how many other sports channels you carry. And if you have to give up on seeing 3/4 tennis majors (4/4 in the near future), what good does the Tennis Channel do you?

I'm not saying Dish couldn't change direction and become a sports-free provider. And they could probably charge a boatload less for everything else. But it would not be a small change.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

sregener said:


> > If Ergen dropped the Disney package of channels tomorrow with a clear statement that he will not allow it back without putting ESPN into the AT120+ and above tiers and the Disney channels in the AT200 and above tiers, I'd pay for a second full service connection in my house to help out. And I don't need my local ABC O&O.
> 
> 
> It would be a serious change for Dish. Didn't they carry BTN? And PAC12? And how many other sports channels have they added over the previous few years? Dropping ESPN only makes sense if they plan to drop all of the other "dedicated" sports channels as well. You aren't going to get a serious college football fan to subscribe to your service without ESPN, no matter how many other sports channels you carry. And if you have to give up on seeing 3/4 tennis majors (4/4 in the near future), what good does the Tennis Channel do you?
> ...


What I'm suggesting would not in any way be a change of direction. For instance (_*emphasis*_ added):



> *DISH Fans Score With Pac-12 Networks*
> 
> ENGLEWOOD, CO and SAN FRANCISCO, CA -- (Marketwire) -- 09/08/12 --
> 
> ...Pac-12 Networks is available to all DISH customers as a free preview for a limited time. It is included in _*America's Top 120+*_ package and above for customers in Pac-12 territory (which includes the six states with Pac-12 schools) and available nationwide in the _*Multi-Sport Pac*_k for $9 per month.


As indicated in the news release, we AT120 subscribers do not have to pay for the Pac-12 games. For $10 a month I can add the "+" to get the AT120+ package. A charge of $10 a month for sports seems reasonable. And a charge of $15 for it with ESPN seems even more reasonable if it means that a household on a budget, without paying for the "plus" or the ESPN $5, can get most popular channels and choose to use the $15 for HBO or set it aside for the kids college fund or retirement. As I see it, that $5 is a tax going to overpaid NFL players or, from another point of view, being used to provide a "sports stamps" program akin to food stamps for sports addicts.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Back in the 80's The Disney Channel was a Premium channel on cable. They should try that again.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ESPN has proved its value over the past 34 years (since 9/7/1979). Whether that value is the asking price they have going in to negotiations or not is a good question for the negotiators. It is one of the few channels that does not have to worry about being arbitrarily dropped. But they should NOT be given a free ride and get renewed at any cost.

DISH is negotiating on our behalf ... I certainly don't want their negotiations to start with "ok, where do we send the check". Sometimes the threat of allowing a contract to expire and taking down a channel needs to be followed by the reality.


----------



## dstout (Jul 19, 2005)

Do you really mean that? I think DISH is concerned with how much money they can take from me.



James Long said:


> DISH is negotiating on our behalf ...


----------



## bnewt (Oct 2, 2003)

James Long said:


> Non-DVR receivers remain available. At least DVR fees are an a la carte option ... if you don't want to pay you don't have to. Just cancel the service.


*everyone knows this option is available*, but to suggest that dish is negotiating for the consumer, is just a farce. They may say that to save face, but the end customer has no idea what dish or any other provider pays to their "vendors". We can only take what we are told in good faith. Dish is in business to make money, but during this worst economic period since the 30's, help out the consumer. But no, they continue to maintain their profit margin while many people struggle to keep their homes after loosing jobs.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

James Long said:


> DISH is negotiating on our behalf ....


Dish is negotiating on Dish's behalf.

We're just the pawns tossing them coins.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

bnewt said:


> We can only take what we are told in good faith.


Nope. You and others are free NOT to accept what you are told. People who already hate DISH for one reason or another are more likely not to accept what they are told. People who look at the numbers will see the truth.



bnewt said:


> Dish is in business to make money, but during this worst economic period since the 30's, help out the consumer. But no, they continue to maintain their profit margin while many people struggle to keep their homes after loosing jobs.


DISH is not a charity ... they are not responsible for "loose" jobs or lost homes. If the price of their service causes someone to lose their home it is someone with lousy priorities. Pay television is OPTIONAL. One is not required to subscribe.

As far as a profit margin ... do you know how much that is? Compared to DirecTV or other carriers? I suspect even if they made only a penny per customer per month in profit that would be too much for some people - people who expect DISH to be a charity.

And yet people *DEMAND* that DISH carry expensive networks such as ESPN while keeping the prices down. They threaten to leave if a channel is off for a day yet they don't like the rate increase that comes from paying providers. One should be glad they are not the ones making decisions under such constraints! It is so much easier to hurl stones on the Internet.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Truth be told... Dish is negotiating for US and for THEM...

Dish wants to make money... they can best make money by charging more than they spend  How can they accomplish a greater margin?

They can raise rates on customers (US)... They can keep cost down for the business (THEM).

So... every channel that they haggle down to a lower price than the channel wants... is more potential money in Dish's pocket either because they get to keep that margin the next time they raise customer rates OR because it drives away less customers the next time they raise rates.

Nobody said Dish wanted to keep channel costs down to be nice to us... just that they want to keep channel costs down for us... keeping those costs down for us ultimately helps Dish be a better company.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

I suppose my view is in the minority, but I believe Charlie takes some things personally and there have been hints in that regard about Disney after the lawsuit loss over HD. Charlie's not an idiot. If the deal offered by the Disney corporate suits is reasonable, Charlie isn't going to reject it. But he tested the "world will end" theory if he lost the Disney HD. Guess what - not even a noticeable blip in subscribers. I know there is posturing in this from the Wall Street Cheat Sheet:


> The high cost of sports has long been an issue that Dish Chairman Charlie Ergen has vocally addressed. ...According to The Wall Street Journal, Dish challenges that argument by explaining that its ESPN programming charges account for more than 40 percent of its cost but add up to less than 20 percent of its viewing minutes. Therefore, Ergen believes Dish could potentially drop ESPN with insignificant backlash in the long run. But analysts like Barton Crockett disagree, saying, "No one is going to be a meaningful player in this industry without carrying ESPN."


But in the past those who disregard Charlie's views thinking they are dealing with people like the suits at Comcast who aren't personally invested in the outcome - those who think it's just business - have had to learn the hard way. Dish is negotiating for Charlie, not for Dish the corporation or for you and me. In the past, except for the occasional personal preference like the Tennis Channel, Charlie's opinions come closer to mine than those of any overpaid corporate suit in the business. That's why I've never seriously considered any other provider since I started using Echostar C-band equipment in 1988.


----------



## Chihuahua (Sep 8, 2007)

*The first major carrier that drops ESPN could end up becoming a trailblazer in the battle against the rising costs of carrying sports networks-----or end up committing economic suicide.*


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

Let's say that ESPN/DISNEY agree to sell their channels al a carte to DISH. So for let's say $25 a month (because of less subs taking the package), you get ESPN/DISNEY and the other ABC owned channels. Your base package goes down $10 a month. Is that a good deal?


So for all these channels included in a base package with Directv you would pay $10-$15 less per month. What happens?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Curtis0620 said:


> Let's say that ESPN/DISNEY agree to sell their channels al a carte to DISH. So for let's say $25 a month (because of less subs taking the package), you get ESPN/DISNEY and the other ABC owned channels. Your base package goes down $10 a month. Is that a good deal?
> 
> So for all these channels included in a base package with Directv you would pay $10-$15 less per month. What happens?


It isn't going to happen... to be blunt, we might as well be talking about "what if my grandmother grew wings"... it really is in that kind of fantasy-land.


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

Stewart Vernon said:


> It isn't going to happen... to be blunt, we might as well be talking about "what if my grandmother grew wings"... it really is in that kind of fantasy-land.


Right, so the only choice is to negotiate a fair price and carry them as is or drop them.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

I still say the most sensible thing is to separate them. Include all of the family/entertainment channels in one of the lower packages and make the sports channels a premium package.

Might not make sense to the stuffed shirts, but it would to those of us who pay them.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

SayWhat? said:


> I still say the most sensible thing is to separate them. Include all of the family/entertainment channels in one of the lower packages and make the sports channels a premium package.
> 
> Might not make sense to the stuffed shirts, but it would to those of us who pay them.


I'd like to see a la carte with my taxes. It's insane that I have to pay for the wastewater treatment plant in town because I have my own septic system. And I homeschool, so I shouldn't have to pay the school tax. This "bundling" of government services only makes sense to the stuffed shirts...

We can rage against the machine all day if we want. Bundling is how cable and satellite have arranged their services, believing that by doing so, they create the best overall value for their customers. I like fringe channels like BBC America and the Tennis Channel. If not for bundling, I doubt I could afford what those channels would cost and they would probably go belly-up for lack of paying customers. Just like few people could afford a la carte property taxes, and the overall services provided to residents would drop precipitously.

At the end of the day, you do a value judgement when it comes to what package of channels you purchase. Either a package is worth what you're paying for it, or it isn't. We all get channels we don't watch.


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

SayWhat? said:


> I still say the most sensible thing is to separate them. Include all of the family/entertainment channels in one of the lower packages and make the sports channels a premium package.
> 
> Might not make sense to the stuffed shirts, but it would to those of us who pay them.


If that were to happen. Dish would lose enough subs that they would need to increase their lower packages to cover current expenses. And I'm not talking retrans fees.


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

Dish wins ABC Auto-Hop lawsuit. The ESPN/DISNEY fees just went up.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

You would think if all of this was heading towards not working out we would've heard some more posturing and blustering from both sides by now. Usually when a deadline gets close and the two sides are far apart in their offers you start hearing how the other guy isn't playing fair and is trying to cheat them, blah, blah, blah. It's been awfully quiet along those lines so far, maybe that's a good sign? Hope I didn't just jinx it!


----------



## pmjones (Aug 3, 2012)

tsmacro said:


> You would think if all of this was heading towards not working out we would've heard some more posturing and blustering from both sides by now. Usually when a deadline gets close and the two sides are far apart in their offers you start hearing how the other guy isn't playing fair and is trying to cheat them, blah, blah, blah. It's been awfully quiet along those lines so far, maybe that's a good sign? Hope I didn't just jinx it!


100% agree with this. Besides one blogger, we have heard ZERO from Disney -or- Dish --> no scrolls, no warnings, nothing. Says to me this is not going to be an issue. If I were a betting man, I would say this is worked out.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

If anything Dish may be using Auto-Hop to deflate Disney/ABC's push for higher prices - Dish uses Auto-Hop as a bargaining chip to trade for lower carriage fees for all ABC affiliates, even though the Network has no control over affiliate negotiations with Dish, there certainly is some influence to be asserted by the network.

Dish can also promise not to expand Auto-Hop to cover the ESPN family of channels - in exchange for lesser fees, or conversely, if we have to pay you more for ESPN, we will initiate Auto-Hop on the ESPN family of channels.

If the networks really don't like Auto-Hop that much, they must be willing to sacrifice something to not have it used on their channels.


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

You make it seem that DISH has the advantage here. They do Not.


----------



## dennispap (Feb 1, 2007)

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/will-dish-network-dare-drop-631832

"On Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Laura Swain in New York ruled against ABC in its efforts to stop Dish subscribers from using its PrimeTime Anytime and AutoHop features.
Aside from the legal fight, the talks are complicated. Disney is reportedly looking to raise the cost for ESPN to as much as $8 from the approximately $5.50 per subscriber per month under the existing contract. The discussions encompass more than 70 channels, platforms and digital services (including VOD and versions of TV Everywhere)."


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

dennispap said:


> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/will-dish-network-dare-drop-631832
> 
> "On Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Laura Swain in New York ruled against ABC in its efforts to stop Dish subscribers from using its PrimeTime Anytime and AutoHop features.
> Aside from the legal fight, the talks are complicated. Disney is reportedly looking to raise the cost for ESPN to as much as $8 from the approximately $5.50 per subscriber per month under the existing contract. The discussions encompass more than 70 channels, platforms and digital services (including VOD and versions of TV Everywhere)."


After reading that article I still don't see anything said by anyone from either Dish or Disney that raises any red flags at this time, it sounds like so far they're really just doing their best to negotiate a deal. The most "alarming" statements in that article seem to come from people playing "what if" who are trying to stir the pot and try to create some juicy news as opposed to just reporting the actual news which in this case is so far pretty bland, people who all seem to be on the outside looking in btw.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I agree... if there was a major issue at this point, somebody would already be loud about it. Channels like this start a month or more in advance with the "you are about to lose your channels" rants... the fact that we haven't heard one negative peep from Disney over this is promising. Similarly, the only negative stuff from Dish/Charlie is from months ago... some Web sites keep recycling old quotes from Charlie, but they are old quotes that don't appear to be valid given the current state of negotiations.

We will, of course, have to wait and see... but the closer we get without loud noises the more positive we should be.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

Neither side has a big advantage.

Dish stands to possibly lose a few subscribers, Not I of course.
ESPN stands to lose the monthly payment for all the Dish Subscribers.

There will be as always some that want ESPN to go away and the other that will say, If they drop ESPN I'm outta here.

And others such as myself that will go Ho Hum...............

If WABC disappeared from Dish for example I would just record it on my DVD recorder and watch from its hard drive later. I am already getting ready to decide what to record on it as I try and sample all the new shows.

TBoneit


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Jim5506 said:


> Dish can also promise not to expand Auto-Hop to cover the ESPN family of channels - in exchange for lesser fees, or conversely, if we have to pay you more for ESPN, we will initiate Auto-Hop on the ESPN family of channels.


The ESPN set of sports channels would be the worst set to add Auto-Hop to. DISH does not do Auto-Hop on OTA networks for sports programs because the breaks are less predictable. The non-sports channels could be hopped. But do they have the viewership to make it worth the trouble? The major broadcast networks are only hopped a handful of hours a day and the channels represent a good portion of television viewership. The reward is worth the cost. DISH would make their decision based on the cost of adding hop information for each show during whatever hours they wanted to target.

I'd like to see Auto-Hop extended to other networks ... but I'm not expecting it and it seems like an empty threat.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

James Long said:


> The ESPN set of sports channels would be the worst set to add Auto-Hop to. DISH does not do Auto-Hop on OTA networks for sports programs because the breaks are less predictable.


Are you sure about this? It'd be trivially easy to do. I suspect the real reason is because 99% of the public will not record a live sports event to watch the next day, so it's wasted effort.

That said, having AutoHop show up on the Disney Channel would be more problematic for Disney, and a cause for cheers with parents everywhere.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

When DISH regularly adds Auto-Hop for live sports on OTA satellite channels I'll consider it a valid threat for ESPN. There are some sports that can wait until next day. If it is possible and DISH is already encoding that channel why not do the live sports too?

Personally I believe it is too much trouble to follow the floating breaks on live sports.

I do expect to see Auto-Hop on other networks (History, Discovery, etc. The type of channel that repeats shows throughout the week where one encoding can match whatever recording the customer chooses). But not on live sports.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

You inferred what I did not imply.

My point is that Dish has an extra bullet in its ammo belt, at least one more than last time around.

I don't know if Dish needs Disney more than Disney needs Dish, I suspect it, but do not know.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

In the short term... a lockout loses more money from ESPN due to the loss of 14 million subscribers worth of revenue... and Dish knows customers can't cancel service that fast even if there was a mass exodus.

In the long term... it gets trickier. IF ESPN could afford a long lockout, we would get to see IF people left Dish in droves over the loss of ESPN... IF it reached a tipping point then Dish would become more motivated to reach a new deal at ESPN terms... unless they just gave up on the notion entirely.

I still say this isn't going to happen. I don't see a blackout happening here. Where I'm less certain, though, is just how much we will get back/new in this deal. I feel more positive about no blackout than I do about restoration if the missing HD feeds + HD feeds of channels we never had before + possibly WatchESPN. Those are there all the sticking points would be... and I don't know how many of those might negotiate separately.... so we could get some but not all and a continuation of channels currently offered... but I don't see a blackout.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

I'm hoping for WatchESPN, and getting the various ESPN sub-channels in HD would be a nice perk. But I'm not going to switch providers if they maintain the status quo. However, losing ESPN for very long would be a significant problem.


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

It's a threat to both Dish and ESPN.

ESPN loses $5 or so plus the charge for its other networks x 14 million each month, not a paltry sum at current rates. Even MORE if other Disney/ABC channels are tied into all of this.

Dish loses some customers, but not very many if it is a short term take down. With folks under contract you won't lose those folks, and others won't just run right out and cancel, they'll wait it out a few days.

Danger for ESPN is that other systems do the same and leverage what Dish is doing and support it.

Also, consider this - at a charge of about $70M a month (14M x 5), even if Dish pulls it off on Tues 10/1 and restores it on Sat 10/5, how much will Dish save in just this time period? What's on ESPN the 1st week of October during the weeknights? Thurs has Texas @ Iowa State in football. I can't see much else that's happening.

You've got the MLB playoffs going on TBS and Fox.....so will anyone be watching ESPN this week or the next? Or even the next week?

I think its the perfect time to for Dish to force ESPNs hand.

I would be shocked if Charlie and company did not have a master theory somewhat along these lines. ESPN has rarely been taken down and a $70M hit for just a month or a week would be a huge hit.


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

How about this: No increase but no HD. On any DISNEY/ABC/ESPN channel.


----------



## joetex (Mar 29, 2007)

I would think that ESPN might be leery of being off Dish for even a short period with the presence of Fox Sports 1, a channel that I have not watched much of since I get my sports news from ESPN SportsCenter. If ESPN goes dark on Dish, I will be tuning into Fox Sports 1 for my national sports news.


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

Put ESPN and ESPN 2 in the top 250 or in the Multi-Sport package. I never watch them. If sports fans want them, make them pay for them. Why should all consumers be forced into a big price increase for these two channels that they may or may not watch. Other than Monday Night Football, I don't even know what is on ESPN.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Link said:


> Put ESPN and ESPN 2 in the top 250 or in the Multi-Sport package. I never watch them. If sports fans want them, make them pay for them. Why should all consumers be forced into a big price increase for these two channels that they may or may not watch. Other than Monday Night Football, I don't even know what is on ESPN.


ESPN would rather give up all 14 million subscribers than be forced to give up 10 million of them. They will never agree to a higher channel placement for their core channels. It is the same answer for a la carte. Why not let only the people who want ESPN pay for the channel and let everyone else drop it? Because ESPN will refuse to sell the channel to anyone via DISH if it is not sold to everyone via DISH.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

I have to agree I have seen no postering from either side, a good sign. This is one time I think DISH is at the disadvantage, and another reason I think the deal is all but done. DISH will just have to pay more than they really want to because I don't see it as a viable option to have ESPN dark with Monday night football, and even just in general. Of all the sports channels, I see the ESPN's being the least likely to be separated from the regular packages, so unless a carrier is willing to tell Disney no and lose ESPN and perhaps the Disney family of channels, things are not going to change.

(Lol posted at the same time and said pretty much what James Long did)


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

It's all about the cards and Charlie does play his hand well. The thing is apparently he can successfully bluff and he just despises losing. It's personal to him. But the stakes are high for the Disney suits. And it's not just ESPN. Can you imagine what it would mean if Dish turned off all ESPN, all Disney channels, ABC Family, and ABC O&O (ABC in the major markets) and lost fewer than 8%of its subscribers over 2 years because all it's packages could be $13 cheaper than every other provider?


----------



## brucegrr (Sep 14, 2006)

Put ESPN and ESPN 2 in the top 250 or in the Multi-Sport package. I never watch them. If sports fans want them, make them pay for them. Why should all consumers be forced into a big price increase for these two channels that they may or may not watch. Other than Monday Night Football, I don't even know what is on ESPN.


This argument works the other way to. There are a lot channels I don't watch. Why should I pay for them? I suspect if I added up the carriage cost for all these channels their cost would exceed the ABC/ESPN cost.

I will agree on one point. Watching TV is getting expensive. How to combat this is THE issue, IMO. 


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

brucegrr said:


> This argument works the other way to. There are a lot channels I don't watch. Why should I pay for them? I suspect if I added up the carriage cost for all these channels their cost would exceed the ABC/ESPN cost.


The average channel isn't anywhere near ESPN's price ... It takes quite a few 20c-30c channels to get up to the $5 of ESPN. You could get there quicker if the channels you didn't watch were popular network TV affiliates or other major sports channels such as the Fox Sports regionals.

All of the other channels would exceed ESPN ... they have not quite reached 50% of programming costs, although with all of the ABC/Disney channels included they are a respectable portion of what DISH pays providers to provide your television service.

I agree that the "let me not subscribe to ESPN" argument works for any channel ... but the "you can't sell our content a la carte" and "give us the tier we want or we walk" arguments from the content providers also apply. The less popular content providers may be told to take a hike - so they agree to a la carte and/or higher tiers. But the big ones tend to get the better placements. They may allow some of their less popular channels be carried in a higher tier but their main channels must be available to nearly every subscriber ... or they walk.

When I first subscribed to DISH 10 years ago the packages were AT60/AT120/AT180/AEP. Now we have AT120/AT200/AT250/AEP. While some of the lower tier additions were music channels much of the increase in channels in the lower packages came from the higher packages. Channels that negotiated their way down to the lowest tier. The tier that most channels with self respect want to be in - delivered to nearly every DISH customer. (BTW: The price of the lower packages has been adjusted accordingly.)

While regional sports remains a second tier offering (currently AT200 for $15 more or the special AT120+ for $10 more than AT120) it remains (according to DISH public relations) "our most popular programming package". Most people are willing to pay the $15 more for the sports and other channels AT200 provides. It would be nice if there could be an AT200 and AT200+ split where one could get the "other channels" without the regional sports but I doubt that DISH would sell AT200 without sports for AT120+$5. And it still wouldn't get pricy ESPN out of the base package.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

I think they'd lose more subscribers over dropping Disney/ABC Family, et al.

The athletic supporters would make more noise in their usual unruly and disruptive manner, but there are plenty of other ways for them to get their lockerroom peeping fix. 

Short of buying the DVDs or using one of the streaming services if you have a capable web connection, there aren't too many other ways to seem the family and kids programming.

The two programming groups REALLY need to be separated.


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

Link said:


> Put ESPN and ESPN 2 in the top 250 or in the Multi-Sport package. I never watch them. If sports fans want them, make them pay for them. Why should all consumers be forced into a big price increase for these two channels that they may or may not watch. Other than Monday Night Football, I don't even know what is on ESPN.


You can bet channel placement is part of all of this. But as a practical matter do not expect ESPN to give on this. ESPN was early to the game and its not backing out.

Under your scenario WHY should I get Nickolodean, Fox News, Comedy, etc.? I don't watch that stuff, but I need to pay for this crap.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

phrelin said:


> It's all about the cards and Charlie does play his hand well. The thing is apparently he can successfully bluff and he just despises losing. It's personal to him. But the stakes are high for the Disney suits. And it's not just ESPN. Can you imagine what it would mean if Dish turned off all ESPN, all Disney channels, ABC Family, and ABC O&O (ABC in the major markets) and lost fewer than 8%of its subscribers over 2 years because all it's packages could be $13 cheaper than every other provider?


I wouldn't miss anything. I really don't watch any of those channels.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

WebTraveler said:


> Under your scenario WHY should I get Nickolodean, Fox News, Comedy, etc.? I don't watch that stuff, but I need to pay for this crap.


Again, as noted above, those are pennies. A small fraction of one percent of the total monthly bill, while ESPN alone is about 10% or more. If ESPN were reasonably priced at .50 or maybe even $1.00, no one would care. When it's somewhere between $5.00 and $10.00, it matters a lot.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Still missing the point. IF everything was separated (the only "fair" way to do it) then ESPN would still find subscribers willing to pay its price moreso than those niche channels that will have to increase from their "pennies" to be viable.

You don't want to pay for ESPN... I don't want to pay for 20 other channels that you like... it's a wash. We all agreed to this marketing method YEARS ago... by signing up for DBS or cable or whatever service we pay for. IF the model isn't working for you, then unsubscribe and look elsewhere. IF enough people disconnect, then you might see some changes... but by and large most people paying for their TV are accepting the contract.

Do I wish TV was cheaper? Yes. I wish EVERYTHING were cheaper... but as of right now... the dollars I pay per month, averaged out per day and per movie/tv show/whatever I watch is still one of the best entertainment deals out there.

I could only see a handful of movies OR attend a few concerts OR rent/buy a handful of movies or TV shows via other methods per month for the same money I spend now to get more than I can sometimes find the time to sit and watch. It's hard to argue I'm not getting a good deal right now.


----------



## brucegrr (Sep 14, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Still missing the point. IF everything was separated (the only "fair" way to do it) then ESPN would still find subscribers willing to pay its price moreso than those niche channels that will have to increase from their "pennies" to be viable.
> 
> You don't want to pay for ESPN... I don't want to pay for 20 other channels that you like... it's a wash. We all agreed to this marketing method YEARS ago... by signing up for DBS or cable or whatever service we pay for. IF the model isn't working for you, then unsubscribe and look elsewhere. IF enough people disconnect, then you might see some changes... but by and large most people paying for their TV are accepting the contract.
> 
> ...


Like you, I wish TV was cheaper. But, I also put the cost in context. We subscribe to HBO which costs the equivelent of my wife and I going to a movie once a month. The price we pay per month for Dish is half of what we would pay for my wife and I to attend an NFL game or an Ohio State football game. (And it is likely our seats would not give us as good of a view as the TV)

I am disabled, and my life is dominated by pain and debility. TV is a wonderful diversion for me. My wife and I love to watch TV, especially since we spent many years in a religion that frowned on watching TV. We are seeing movies for the first time that "normal" people saw 25 years ago.  for us, Dish provides a good value.

I am an avid sports fan and I watch ESPN. However, if ESPN was not on Dish, outside of Monday Night football and a few college football/basketball games, I wouldn't miss it. Our kids are all grown now, so ABC Family, Disney, etc are no longer watched in our home. We would, however, miss ABC.

This debate will continue to spin, with each of us having our own opinion about what programming is important to us. Makes for great discussions, but like with politics and religion, rarely are opinions changed.


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

WebTraveler said:


> You can bet channel placement is part of all of this. But as a practical matter do not expect ESPN to give on this. ESPN was early to the game and its not backing out.
> 
> Under your scenario WHY should I get Nickolodean, Fox News, Comedy, etc.? I don't watch that stuff, but I need to pay for this crap.


Those channels alone aren't driving up the cost of the package as a whole in the way ESPN is. If it is going to cost as much as it does and cause a price hike to every package, then they need to come up with other options for the people that want it.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> IF the model isn't working for you, then unsubscribe and look elsewhere.


If there was a good elsewhere that would be a better argument. My sister talks about cutting the cord to save money but she can't find everything she wants elsewhere. Even by using various vendors. Many of the vendors could be considered questionable as far as legality issues. I don't mind paying the providers something for their content but I do not want to pay a vendor who is providing content that THEY should be paying for unless they pay the provider. Others may not care and see not paying the provider/content owner as their way of "sticking it to the man". But I digress.

It is nice to have a provider where I do not have to wonder if they are legally delivering content. Sure DISH illegally delivered four HD ABC/ESPN channels a few years ago ... but that was more of a misunderstanding and they had permission to deliver the content in SD to the customers who received it in HD. I can't say that about all the alternate vendors.



Link said:


> Those channels alone aren't driving up the cost of the package as a whole in the way ESPN is. If it is going to cost as much as it does and cause a price hike to every package, then they need to come up with other options for the people that want it.


Breaking News: DISH will raise prices in February 2014. Whether they blame the price increase on ESPN, the regional sports channels, local network affiliates or some other outside influences prices will go up in February.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

Link said:


> Those channels alone aren't driving up the cost of the package as a whole in the way ESPN is. If it is going to cost as much as it does and cause a price hike to every package, then they need to come up with other options for the people that want it.


I understand your argument, but you'll also need to consider mine. Almost all of the channels I or my family watch are in AT120. I have to get AT200 to get NFL Network, BTN, The Hub and BBC America. You can't tell me those 4 channels are $15/month. And I have to get AT250 to get 1 channel, but a very important one to me: The Tennis Channel. That's 5 channels total that add $25/month to my bill. Which puts them in the ESPN pricing range. Sure there's 125 other channels that I'm getting, but I never watch them, so why should I have to pay for them?

Sports programming is the #1 reason I have pay television. There isn't anything else on pay TV I couldn't find elsewhere or substitute elsewhere for a lot less $$$.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

brucegrr said:


> Like you, I wish TV was cheaper. But, I also put the cost in context. We subscribe to HBO which costs the equivelent of my wife and I going to a movie once a month. The price we pay per month for Dish is half of what we would pay for my wife and I to attend an NFL game or an Ohio State football game. (And it is likely our seats would not give us as good of a view as the TV)
> 
> I am disabled, and my life is dominated by pain and debility. TV is a wonderful diversion for me. My wife and I love to watch TV, especially since we spent many years in a religion that frowned on watching TV. We are seeing movies for the first time that "normal" people saw 25 years ago.  for us, Dish provides a good value.
> 
> ...


I'm disabled as well, but I watch The History Channel, A&E ETC. If I didn't have I'd be board. Like you I have lots of pain.


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

SayWhat? said:


> Again, as noted above, those are pennies. A small fraction of one percent of the total monthly bill, while ESPN alone is about 10% or more. If ESPN were reasonably priced at .50 or maybe even $1.00, no one would care. When it's somewhere between $5.00 and $10.00, it matters a lot.


Why is it any different? As a practical matter you will lose any argument about forcing ESPN ala carte and none of the others. Sorry, I think most of what is put out by Viacom is trash tv. In the aggregate they command some good dollars....maybe not per channel.


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

The fact that we do not see any of the screen crawls right now telling us of a potential loss of ESPN is very encouraging......


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

*Dish-Disney TV contract dispute has many customers on edge*

Contract negotiations between Dish Network and the Walt Disney Co. look to be as cantankerous as the dustup last month between Time Warner Cable and CBS.

Things are not going smoothly for the two entertainment heavyweights with their contract set to expire Sept. 30.

The talks stalled last week, according to the financial website seekingalpha.com, and Dish co-founder and Chairman Charles W. Ergen was taking a hard line as early as last month.

Full Story Here


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

> If that happens, Dish customers would be without ESPN's huge menu of sports offerings and the Pac-12 network while college and professional football are kicking into high gear and the baseball playoffs are close at hand.


What's P12 Network have to do with it?


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Athlon646464 said:


> Burbank-based Disney is a huge content provider, owning both the Disney/ABC Television Group and the sports juggernaut ESPN. The company also owns eight ABC stations located in Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Houston, Chicago, Fresno and Raleigh-Durham, N.C. Since September 2010 Disney has negotiated seven contracts without facing a content blackout period.


Fresno really?


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

Would dropping ESPN be a bad thing? I see a multitude of post decrying the cost of ESPN to people that could give a flip about sports. Subscribers would have a real choice, to pay or not to pay for sports (If Dish reduces there package prices accordingly). There would be a great amount of churn but I doubt that in the end the numbers of subs would change that much. With the freed capacity Dish could also add a multitude of content that Directv will not have. At the cost of content today, these companies need to target their audience instead of trying to satisfy everyone. This may have the effect of drawing subs from cable that are tired of paying for sports channels that they do not watch. Another side effect of Dish dropping ESPN may force ESPN to go a la cart, but that may be a stretch.


----------



## brucegrr (Sep 14, 2006)

Why would losing ESPN affect the baseball playoffs? The playoffs are on TBS and Fox.


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

lwilli201 said:


> Would dropping ESPN be a bad thing? I see a multitude of post decrying the cost of ESPN to people that could give a flip about sports. Subscribers would have a real choice, to pay or not to pay for sports (If Dish reduces there package prices accordingly). There would be a great amount of churn but I doubt that in the end the numbers of subs would change that much. *With the freed capacity Dish could also add a multitude of content that Directv will not have. * At the cost of content today, these companies need to target their audience instead of trying to satisfy everyone. This may have the effect of drawing subs from cable that are tired of paying for sports channels that they do not watch. Another side effect of Dish dropping ESPN may force ESPN to go a la cart, but that may be a stretch.


Can you enlighten me on what this multitude of content is?


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> What's P12 Network have to do with it?





Paul Secic said:


> Fresno really?





brucegrr said:


> Why would losing ESPN affect the baseball playoffs? The playoffs are on TBS and Fox.


I simply quoted the LA Daily News article.

The link to the full story is in my post. Gregory Wilcox's (the reporter who wrote the story) email address is at the end of the article.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Another release with no updated info or direct quotes from either party that weren't from last month. The only source we have that anything has changed is apparently someone at seekingalpha.com seems to think talks have stalled, but no reason given as to why they think that or where they're getting that info because everything else in that article is just regurgitated from what we've already seen. Until I see a release from either Dish or Disney confirming any of this I remain dubious.


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

Curtis0620 said:


> Can you enlighten me on what this multitude of content is?


OK, maybe a poor choice of words, but it would free up some space, but that is not the real focus of my post.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Athlon646464 said:


> I simply quoted the LA Daily News article.
> 
> The link to the full story is in my post. Gregory Wilcox's (the reporter who wrote the story) email address is at the end of the article.


I understand and wasn't meaning to ask you. It was just a general question regarding the article.


----------



## brucegrr (Sep 14, 2006)

My point is, at least on the baseball playoffs, the article is incorrect.


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I don't question Athlon here... he's doing the due diligence and updating us with the latest "info"... I am increasingly disappointed by how many online Web sites keep recycling old quotes from months ago as if they were just said yesterday, though. Also making up some stuff, as this article does, related to PAC-12 and Baseball being affected... and of course the nebulous and vague "according to sources" which leads me to believe his "source" is the random internet rumor that keeps resurfacing from months ago.

We know from past disputes that someone would be screaming bloody murder about now IF these negotiations had truly stalled... also, the lack of any recent new rumor tends to dispel that notion.

There are so many factual errors that are easily discredited, that it pretty much leads you to conclude the whole article here is piecemeal nothingness.

Besides, we are going to find out in a week anyway... and unlike a less popular channel, everybody involved in the negotiations knows how the viewers feel here... so I again will be surprised at anything beyond a symbolic dropping of channels, and even that seems unlikely given how little we have heard to this point.

I fully expect to still have ESPN next Tuesday... and within the coming weeks after that to see other HD feeds light up for other Disney/ABC/ESPN channels.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

^^^
And I don't question you not questioning me......


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

My point is, at least on the baseball playoffs, the article is incorrect.


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


So was the part about pac12 channels. That has nothing to do with espn. However they may have mentioned it because of all the pac12 games that are now on espn that you'd lose. It was a Fresno article. 


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> So was the part about pac12 channels. That has nothing to do with espn. However they may have mentioned it because of all the pac12 games that are now on espn that you'd lose. It was a Fresno article.


The article specifically said "PAC-12 Network". Not PAC-12 content on ESPN. It was one of the many errors in the article.

We are at an odd point in the process ... so far no promotion from either side asking customers to visit some "keep ESPN on DISH" or "keep the price fair" websites as we have seen with other disputes. And no announced deal for ESPN and whatever other channels are involved to continue. One of those directions will become more clear by next Tuesday.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

You know I spent the whole day worrying if Disney and Dish would come to an agreement, I just couldn't get any work done, I'll probably not get much sleep tonight, I'm off my feed, I can't eat, I'm irritable - WHAT SHALL I DO?


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Jim5506 said:


> You know I spent the whole day worrying if Disney and Dish would come to an agreement, I just couldn't get any work done, I'll probably not get much sleep tonight, I'm off my feed, I can't eat, I'm irritable - WHAT SHALL I DO?


GO through life and worry about things that you CAN do something about...


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

Curtis0620 said:


> Can you enlighten me on what this multitude of content is?


Sure. They could go back to sending out 1920x1080 instead of 1440x1080. All those dropped bits are content.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Jim5506 said:


> You know I spent the whole day worrying if Disney and Dish would come to an agreement, I just couldn't get any work done, I'll probably not get much sleep tonight, I'm off my feed, I can't eat, I'm irritable - WHAT SHALL I DO?


Geez it's just TV.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Paul Secic said:


> Geez it's just TV.


I'm fairly certain he was being sarcastic.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)




----------



## tommiet (Dec 29, 2005)

DROP IT AND SAVE ME $15.00 A MONTH!!!!!!


----------



## jftimmers (Sep 2, 2011)

Paul Secic said:


> Fresno really?


Really. KFSN in Fresno is an ABC O & O.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

jftimmers said:


> Really. KFSN in Fresno is an ABC O & O.


I didn't know that.
Thanks!


----------



## wallyb47 (Jun 18, 2012)

WebTraveler said:


> I would expect to see a few days of standoff on this.
> 
> The said reality is that bills are now at $100 a month for people and pay tv outlets are losing customers. There is a sweet spot for consumers in probably the $85 - $95 range and after that the cord is getting cut. So the pressure on Dish, Directv, and so forth is likely to try in vain to keep the bills at that point.
> 
> ...


The way ESPN/DISNEY/ABC make money is by being in the lowest tiers. That way they get paid for each subscriber not a select few subscribing to premium or sport packages. If, as reported elsewhere, ESPN gets $5.50 they receive $77 million a month from Dish alone. Add DirecTv and they add $100 million a month to ESPN. Now add all the cable companies and see what they get a month. ESPN would not approve a contract that removes them from basic service. Now, what is the fallout if Dish doesn't renew? As a email from Dish reminded me trying to sell the multisport package, which went from $7 to $12 a month, it is college football season. Yep, sure is. I dare say Dish will lose many subscribers to cable or DirecTv if it dragged out too long. It seems odd that ONLY Dish has ESPNU, ESPNNews, Disney and ABC channels in SD when everyone else has it in HD. Dish customers have suffered long enough with the others providing in HD. Dish can play hardball, but I think they may be misjudging the fallout if they lose ESPN or decide to drop it. As one poster noted ESPN isn't AMC.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

jftimmers said:


> Really. KFSN in Fresno is an ABC O & O.


I guess my question is are the ABC stations also up for renewal?


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

They lost me, Im tired of the drama constantly with locals or nationals. Directv install on Saturday.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

What drama?

This is one of the MOST peaceful negotiations I can remember in my time with Dish. Seriously. Neither Dish nor ESPN has said BOO about the contract expiring in the next 5 days... In the past, we would have had Web sites, commercials, and channel scrolls by now each telling how the other was evil personified.

The only drama in this negotiation has been from a few "news" Web sites who seem to be recycling old news and old quotes to imply something bad is going to happen... someone today was talking about "Black Monday"... but nobody from Dish or ESPN is saying anything negative about the other.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

Stewart Vernon said:


> This is one of the MOST peaceful negotiations I can remember in my time with Dish. Seriously. Neither Dish nor ESPN has said BOO about the contract expiring in the next 5 days... In the past, we would have had Web sites, commercials, and channel scrolls by now each telling how the other was evil personified.


I've noticed this as well. In fact, if not for this forum, I'd have no idea the contract was set to expire.


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> What drama?
> 
> This is one of the MOST peaceful negotiations I can remember in my time with Dish. Seriously. Neither Dish nor ESPN has said BOO about the contract expiring in the next 5 days... In the past, we would have had Web sites, commercials, and channel scrolls by now each telling how the other was evil personified.
> 
> The only drama in this negotiation has been from a few "news" Web sites who seem to be recycling old news and old quotes to imply something bad is going to happen... someone today was talking about "Black Monday"... but nobody from Dish or ESPN is saying anything negative about the other.


Oh I agree with you 100%.

But.....what I don't get is IF a new deal is now in place WHY both sides have not announced that!? If Dish is to receive any of the online apps, like watchespn and espn3, and even ESPNU in HD then that would be a boon to anyone sitting on the fence thinking of switching over the Pac 12 Network not being on Directv. Because I know several on the fence who are afraid of switching and signing a 2 year deal for a provider w/o ESPN.

So my thought is - let's get on with it and announce it if a deal has been done.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Jason Whiddon said:


> They lost me, Im tired of the drama constantly with locals or nationals. Directv install on Saturday.


Good luck with that. There's no place you can get away from the "drama" these days between the companies that own the channels and those that provide them to the subscribers.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

WebTraveler said:


> But.....what I don't get is IF a new deal is now in place WHY both sides have not announced that!? If Dish is to receive any of the online apps, like watchespn and espn3, and even ESPNU in HD then that would be a boon to anyone sitting on the fence thinking of switching over the Pac 12 Network not being on Directv. Because I know several on the fence who are afraid of switching and signing a 2 year deal for a provider w/o ESPN.
> 
> So my thought is - let's get on with it and announce it if a deal has been done.


That is a horse of a different color. Both satellite and cable companies are notoriously bad about not telling customers good news. When my father used to have Time Warner cable, I routinely told him about new channels due to reading forums like this one... and Time Warner rarely told him anything. Same with Dish... just about every time I can remember when Dish added new channels, I read it on this forum first (and I'm not just talking uplinks) and it was usually nearly a month later, if even, before Dish said anything.

You would think good news would be good news.

But... just like most subscribers don't know there is a major contract about to expire... they also will not know when it is renewed... and might not notice the new channels or new features unless they stumble on them accidentally.

Dish could be better about telling customers when it adds new channels... but I've sort of given up on them doing so.


----------



## TheGrove (Jan 10, 2007)

Jason Whiddon said:


> They lost me, Im tired of the drama constantly with locals or nationals. Directv install on Saturday.





tsmacro said:


> Good luck with that. There's no place you can get away from the "drama" these days between the companies that own the channels and those that provide them to the subscribers.


Yeah, next year will be DirectTV's turn.


----------



## tommiet (Dec 29, 2005)

Is ESPN gone yet? I can't wait to save some money.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

tommiet said:


> Is ESPN gone yet? I can't wait to save some money.


#1. ESPN will not be going anywhere.
#2. Even if it did, your bill will not likely drop as a result.


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> That is a horse of a different color. Both satellite and cable companies are notoriously bad about not telling customers good news. When my father used to have Time Warner cable, I routinely told him about new channels due to reading forums like this one... and Time Warner rarely told him anything. Same with Dish... just about every time I can remember when Dish added new channels, I read it on this forum first (and I'm not just talking uplinks) and it was usually nearly a month later, if even, before Dish said anything.
> 
> You would think good news would be good news.
> 
> ...


Yep.....but there are potential customers waiting in the wings to sign up for Dish = that they are holding their cards before they fold and come over!!!


----------



## SDWC (Dec 14, 2005)

The latest article.

http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2013/09/30/another-looming-shutdown-dish-network-could-lose-espn-abc/


----------



## Orion9 (Jan 31, 2011)

Stewart Vernon said:


> But... just like most subscribers don't know there is a major contract about to expire... they also will not know when it is renewed... and might not notice the new channels or new features unless they stumble on them accidentally.


Forums like this tend to be highly specialized where the most interested/motivated ~1% of any service's customers hang out.

When I was shopping for a new washer - because the 30 year-old unit was leaking, I visited a washer dryer forum (first surprise - there is a washer dryer forum) and I found a post where a frequent poster said that they buy a new washer and drier every 6 months to keep up with the technology. It blew my mind, but probably some of them would have surprised that a forum for TV service provider exists too, let alone that people there discuss contract negotiations for channels.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

My gut says all the current ABC/ESPN/Disney channels will still be with us tomorrow. No news is good news on that front... the yelling and screaming from ESPN should have already started weeks ago if we were going dark tonight.

Best case scenario would be if the new contract is a done deal and includes all the "lost" HD feeds + ESPNUHD + WatchESPN. However, even in the best case scenario it could be weeks before we see those channels light up.

When AMC came back, only AMCHD came back immediately... those other HD feeds took nearly a month to show up and I'm not sure we ever found out why the delay.

So... I would expect any new/returning HD feeds to possibly be as much as a month out even if a new contract is done tonight. WatchESPN would require some updates to their APP, but that could happen sooner than the HD feeds potentially.

In a perfect world, we would get all the channels on Wednesday and WatchESPN by the weekend... but I have low confidence in that scenario.

We should know something by morning, though... even if it is just status quo... that in itself will tell us something.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

AMC HD was the real channel ... the others were bonus. AMC HD has also been recently carried - the others had to have space made for them.

It has been too long since the disputed ABC/ESPN channels were pulled - and there is no sign of testing going on to instantly make them HD.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

*DISH and The Walt Disney Company Continue Talks, Extend Contract*

ENGLEWOOD, Colo. & BURBANK, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- DISH (NASDAQISH) and The Walt Disney Company (NYSEIS) have reached a short-term extension with respect to the continued carriage of ESPN; Disney Channel; ABC owned stations in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Houston, Raleigh-Durham and Fresno; ABC Family and other networks from The Walt Disney Company. Details regarding the extension were not announced.

*About DISH*
DISH Network Corporation (NASDAQISH), through its subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C., provides approximately 14.014 million satellite TV customers, as of June 30, 2013, with the highest quality programming and technology with the most choices at the best value, including HD Free for Life*®*. Subscribers enjoy the largest high definition line-up, the most international channels, and award-winning HD and DVR technology. DISH Network Corporation's subsidiary, Blockbuster L.L.C., delivers family entertainment to millions of customers around the world. DISH Network Corporation is a Fortune 200 company. Visit www.dish.com.

*About Disney Media Networks*
Disney Media Networks comprises a vast array of The Walt Disney Company's (NYSEIS) broadcast, cable, radio, publishing and Internet businesses, including Disney/ABC Television Group and ESPN, Inc. The Disney/ABC Television Group is composed of The Walt Disney Company's global entertainment and news television properties, including the ABC Television Network, ABC Studios, Disney Channels Worldwide, ABC Family, as well as Disney/ABC Domestic Television and Disney Media Distribution. ESPN, Inc., The Worldwide Leader in Sports, is the leading multinational, multimedia sports entertainment company featuring the broadest portfolio of multimedia sports assets with over 50 business entities.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

The above was fresh in my email just minutes ago... I neglected to mention in any of my earlier posts that my local ABC station is an owned/operated by ABC station and they have not been running any scrolls like the Media General-owned NBC affiliate has... so I had a semi-inside-track to guess that all was still well.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

I too got the email and would have lost my ABC local. I really didn't expect Disney to insist on a blackout during the first weeks of the new season. After all, I need to keep up with "Dancing with the Stars." :sure: Maybe they can work something out with Charlie that makes sense. Or not.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I have to think most of this is about the WatchESPN and possibly ESPN3 access... I mean, there are really no new channels as such. Return of the HD feeds + ESPNU in HD that Dish never had.... but no new channels to haggle over unless somehow the Longhorn network is involved, but Texas isn't helping ESPN right now to sell that channel with their performance on the football field! So it seems like it has to be the digital/online stuff that might be hanging things up.

I couldn't even guess at how they come to a value on what that is worth per subscriber... I wish they could separate that negotiation with an agreement that adds all the channels for a multi-year deal and allows them to continue to negotiate on the digital stuff... but I expect Disney/ESPN wants to do everything in one shot.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

Another trick to the digital stuff is that Dish has never had to negotiate for ESPN3, since they don't have an ISP service, plus I'm sure a discussion of how many of their subs do or don't have broadband is a discussion. WatchESPN is more complicated for a satellite provider than a cable provider.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Yeah... for a cable company that is also an internet provider, WatchESPN and ESPN3 are "in-network" so to speak... but except for the areas where Dish is selling satellite internet, those would be eyes away from Dish... so Dish might view those as less valuable to them than a cable company would.


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

JosephB said:


> Another trick to the digital stuff is that Dish has never had to negotiate for ESPN3, since they don't have an ISP service, plus I'm sure a discussion of how many of their subs do or don't have broadband is a discussion. WatchESPN is more complicated for a satellite provider than a cable provider.


Doesn't Dishnet count as an ISP? Granted it's a niche service for the "undeserved" areas of the country, but it is internet service.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Curiously... I did see something today about the SEC Network... so maybe ESPN/Disney is also trying to negotiate that this year... but I didn't see/hear anything about the Longhorn network. Things are generally pretty quiet on this, even with the semi-press-release from Dish yesterday.

No panic or threats or scrolls from ESPN yet... which leads me to believe that even if these companies are negotiating some nasty sticking points, they must be doing it civilly... because we usually see the fire spitting and we know these two companies have bad blood between them, so the civility is almost deafening.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Stewart Vernon said:


> ...so the civility is almost deafening.


Great line!


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

This appears to be the latest and where the renewals lie; apparently the extension is only one or two days....

Disney-Dish Talks Said to Hinge on Skipping Ads, Adding Networks

http://adage.com/article/media/disney-dish-talks-hinge-ad-skipping-networks/244496/


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Hmmm. Well, if Disney is only seeking assurances that Dish won't expand Hopper ad skipping to cable channels, then a deal is possible. If Disney is demanding Dish shut off ad skipping on ABC, I can't imagine that happening.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

phrelin said:


> Great line!


Thanks... I quite literally stumbled into that, and while I don't normally pat myself on the back... I was quite happy I thought of typing that! 



phrelin said:


> Hmmm. Well, if Disney is only seeking assurances that Dish won't expand Hopper ad skipping to cable channels, then a deal is possible. If Disney is demanding Dish shut off ad skipping on ABC, I can't imagine that happening.


Yeah... IF it is about the LiLs, then I think they have a problem... but if it is about assuring they stick to LiLs, Dish probably is ok with that.

IF that linked article is accurate, it makes sense to me that it might be more about the SEC network and that other channel ESPN wants to launch... but that maybe Disney is trying to leverage their "hate" of the AutoHop to Dish by saying "IF you pay us for these new channels we want to launch, we will stop fighting on AutoHOP"... I could see FOX playing that same card eventually to re-negotiate FS1 and FS2 at some point, by agreeing to drop AutoHOP complaints if Dish deals with them on the channels they care more about.

AutoHop is kind of becoming a potential tool for BOTH sides to leverage in these negotiations I think.

I would like to see Dish get the SEC network... I expect the ACC to try one eventually, so I'd like to think the precedent to carry them would be set by that time. I have to think the SEC network, though, would be handled similar to Big10 and Pac12 and be in the multi-sport except for SEC DMAs... and those were apparently hard for Dish to negotiate in the past too so I could see that being a sticking point.

No mention of the "lost" HD feeds or ESPNUHD... so we either must believe those are already agreed upon in principle OR were never part of the deal... and the former seems much more likely than the latter as I can't imagine Disney wanting SEC more than their other feeds.


----------



## festivus (Nov 10, 2008)

Interesting that this auto hop is a stumbling block to an agreement. Of course I have old equipment from 2007 (two 622's). Makes me wonder when networks are going to demand technology to not allow folks to skip ads, period. Kinda like a dvd won't let one skip over the warning page. When that happens I might have to give up TV altogether.

But as it now stands, if ESPN were to go dark on dish, I would look immediately to switch to TWC (I already have roadrunner) or Directv. Worst possible time, football season, for this to happen.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

I doubt that ad skipping is the only thing. SEC Network, Longhorn, WatchESPN, the rate they charge, etc, etc is all thrown in there.


----------



## doctorbs (Oct 6, 2013)

LazhilUT said:


> http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2013/09/05/media-journal-would-dish-network-really-consider-dropping-espn/?mod=yahoo_hs
> 
> If Dish drops ESPN and other Disney/ABC Channels...I will be gone, not ifs or buts...I watch ESPN all the time and my kid loves all the Disney channels.
> Dish will experience a max exodus if this happens. Book it!


On phone with Direct TV Oct 1. She said Dish was going to use recordings of old sports events. Apparently they made a last minute deal to keep them because I got ball games tonight. The contract officially ended September 30th. I'm gone anyway tho because the Hopper is cumbersome to me compared to Direct TV HOWEVER I'm going to Charter and get a Tivo. I like to go back and forth between games and apparently with the Hopper, when you come back to a game you have to start at beginning and fast forward to where you were in the game IF the game is still in progress. Games that have finished like yesterdays games do have a Resume choice but if the games are still in progress you either have to join the game live or stop the recording. They say there are convoluted ways to do it but Direct TV was soooo easy. Hope Tivo is also. Better check on it.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

doctorbs said:


> On phone with Direct TV Oct 1. She said Dish was going to use recordings of old sports events.


Uh, no. I hope you enjoy Charter.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I have a feeling we will be getting some good news soon. You read it here first!


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

phrelin said:


> Hmmm. Well, if Disney is only seeking assurances that Dish won't expand Hopper ad skipping to cable channels, then a deal is possible. If Disney is demanding Dish shut off ad skipping on ABC, I can't imagine that happening.


Why? I would not be one bit surprised if someone at some point dumps dish without them agreeing to not using auto hop. I have said that from the beginning. Courts can do what they want, but in the end, the channels have the power to say pound sand. They will leverage it for more money.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

doctorbs said:


> On phone with Direct TV Oct 1. She said Dish was going to use recordings of old sports events. Apparently they made a last minute deal to keep them because I got ball games tonight. The contract officially ended September 30th. I'm gone anyway tho because the Hopper is cumbersome to me compared to Direct TV HOWEVER I'm going to Charter and get a Tivo. I like to go back and forth between games and apparently with the Hopper, when you come back to a game you have to start at beginning and fast forward to where you were in the game IF the game is still in progress. Games that have finished like yesterdays games do have a Resume choice but if the games are still in progress you either have to join the game live or stop the recording. They say there are convoluted ways to do it but Direct TV was soooo easy. Hope Tivo is also. Better check on it.


Uh, Charter for TV? Im so sorry if your in the same charter area as me. Thats not tv, that's torture. no way id ever even consider it unless they offered me $1,000,000 and I didn't have to sign a contract.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

^^^
What he said. Charter is my only alternative to satellite. They are horrible with their TV service. I have their internet and can say it has been fast and reliable. When I had their TV service they seemed to be about 5 years behind everyone else with their channel lineup (HD) and technology (DVR).


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

doctorbs said:


> I like to go back and forth between games and apparently with the Hopper, when you come back to a game you have to start at beginning and fast forward to where you were in the game IF the game is still in progress. Games that have finished like yesterdays games do have a Resume choice but if the games are still in progress you either have to join the game live or stop the recording. They say there are convoluted ways to do it but Direct TV was soooo easy.


Yeah, it's a bit counter-intuitive to use the PiP "Swap" button to switch between games. And it was very easy for me to switch between games with my DirecTV HR22-100: Press a button and pray the DVR "hears" it. Wait 10 seconds while nothing happens, then press the button again, only to have it immediately register 2 button presses.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Why? I would not be one bit surprised if someone at some point dumps dish without them agreeing to not using auto hop. I have said that from the beginning. Courts can do what they want, but in the end, the channels have the power to say pound sand. They will leverage it for more money.


I agree with the "leverage" concept. If I were Disney, I'd be demanding an extra two bucks "prime-time fee" for every Hopper-equipped subscriber who has a local ABC channel, to be split with the local affiliate, in return for signing whatever agreement on everything else has been reached and for dropping the lawsuit. If Dish agreed to even 20¢ the first year with gradual increases to whatever, you'd set a precedent for sharing in DVR fees.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It is not a fee that DISH would agree to ... and eventually ESPN would find itself in the same position as The Weather Channel did a couple of years ago when they decided that they didn't need DISH subscribers. Losing 14 million subscribers.

The Weather Channel being in a less protected position since anyone can give a weather forecast ... ESPN holds rights to content that cannot be retransmitted by other networks. But the concept of ESPN's executive team waking up one morning and finding out they had lost 14 million homes is something that cannot be ignored.

ESPN is already at it's lowest subscriber level since 2008 ... only 97.9 million subscribers for ESPN and ESPN2 in July 2013. That is about a million less than one year prior. They are generally losing subscribers due to cord cutting, but a million less people paying ~$5.40 for ESPN and 68c for ESPN2 adds up.
(Figures from whatyoupayforsports.com)

ESPN gave up NASCAR (effective 2015) and there are rumors that they might pay their way out of their current contract so they would not be forced to spend the money to cover the sport in 2014. There may be more sports that ESPN will need to shed to stay in business. Be prepared to watch ESPN change their focus to sports that either have a high dollar return or are cheap to cover. Or see them fill their hours with replays and studio shows that are cheaper than sending a production team out to cover a sport.

ESPN (and other ABC/Disney networks) need subscribers. I don't see them throwing away 14 million subscribers over the Hopper. Plus it is not the best PR move ... "We refuse to sign a deal with DISH because we want to force subscribers to see our commercials?" And if DISH agreed to give ABC 20c to allow commercials on ABC to be skipped you can be sure that CBS, NBC and Fox will be next in line with their hand out for 25c, 30c and a dollar. It is a bad precedent to set.


----------



## jsk (Dec 27, 2006)

ESPN wouldn't be throwing away 14 million subscribers because many of them would leave Dish and go to another provider. 

I would not leave and would be happy if they dropped ESPN & Disney if they lowered my bill. However, I don't see Dish dropping ESPN because they will lose too many subscribers.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Keep in mind that not only are the ESPN and Disney groups of cable channels involved plus ABC Family, but at stake here is ABC owned and operated broadcast stations which serve 23% of the television homes or 26 million homes. ESPN may be important, but losing ABC for maybe 20% of Dish customers could be a problem for Dish.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

jsk said:


> ESPN wouldn't be throwing away 14 million subscribers because many of them would leave Dish and go to another provider.


How many? We've been reading for years about how people want an ESPN free programming choice. DISH could become that choice.



jsk said:


> I would not leave and would be happy if they dropped ESPN & Disney if they lowered my bill. However, I don't see Dish dropping ESPN because they will lose too many subscribers.


Do not be surprised if ESPN and the related channels are off for a month or so. I hope there is no gap (it is chase season for NASCAR) but a lot of negotiations end up with gaps as the parties figure out just how much each other are worth. And then a resolution comes and all is well.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I think if DIsh drops espn, they should just drop all sports only channels then. Logic there is at least some of most the major sports are on espn anymore, aside from the nhl. And if people want all the games...


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

phrelin said:


> Keep in mind that not only are the ESPN and Disney groups of cable channels involved plus ABC Family, but at stake here is ABC owned and operated broadcast stations which serve 23% of the television homes or 26 million homes. ESPN may be important, but losing ABC for maybe 20% of Dish customers could be a problem for Dish.


Not for me.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

jsk said:


> ESPN wouldn't be throwing away 14 million subscribers because many of them would leave Dish and go to another provider.
> 
> I would not leave and would be happy if they dropped ESPN & Disney if they lowered my bill. However, I don't see Dish dropping ESPN because they will lose too many subscribers.


Actually, ESPN might be throwing away more than 14 million subscribers. Because studies have shown that 50% of households never watch ESPN. And many people who don't watch ESPN are just like you: they would be happy to not pay for ESPN. So while the ESPN fans would leave Dish in droves, Dish might see an increase in customers as those people who don't want ESPN flock to the provider. There'd be a churn period as people who are locked in contracts would hesitate to switch, and the ABC O&O does muddle the math a little, but it could be a smart move for Dish to differentiate themselves.


----------



## tommiet (Dec 29, 2005)

Is ESPN gone yet? I'm hoping for more shopping and/or paint drying channels.


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

> So while the ESPN fans would leave Dish in droves, Dish might see an increase in customers as those people who don't want ESPN flock to the provider.


Some of you are so far from reality when Dish has a dispute.

First, they aint working for you.
Second, you arent going to save money.
Third, people arent going to leave Directv of Cable to go to Dish because they dont have a channel.

Get real.


----------



## pmjones (Aug 3, 2012)

Jason Whiddon said:


> Some of you are so far from reality when Dish has a dispute.
> 
> First, they aint working for you.
> Second, you arent going to save money.
> ...


I love Dish, but I have to agree with this post. I can't imagine customers leaving a provider to go to Dish because they break with Disney.

Bottom line ~ this is going to get worked out and (I believe) we will see the entire Disney/ESPN family in HD. Why do I think this? Because that would make everyone the most money. It really is that simple.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Jason Whiddon said:


> Third, people arent going to leave Directv of Cable to go to Dish because they dont have a channel.


If it saves them money they will. People chose to subscribe to DISH instead of DirecTV because DISH had the AT120 channel package that does not include regional sports and about three dozen other channels. DirecTV eventually responded by introducing their own budget package (Entertainment).

BTW: Anyone who thinks DISH will immediately lose their 14 million customers to DirecTV or other providers should ESPN be dropped needs a reality check.


----------



## bwest602 (Jan 14, 2006)

For some reason this evening I no longer show a network logo in the Guide for any of the ESPN channels, the Disney channels or ABC Family--all the other channels are fine (I have the everything package w/ [email protected]). They are blank on both Hoppers and both Joeys. The schedule appears just fine, just missing the logos. Anyone else having the same issue? It's not a sign of something coming I hope.


----------



## CeeWoo (Dec 1, 2008)

James Long said:


> BTW: Anyone who thinks DISH will immediately lose their 14 million customers to DirecTV or other providers should ESPN be dropped needs a reality check.


After 1 I know of, I don't care how many others might drop Dish


----------



## bnewt (Oct 2, 2003)

well, I would likely be leaving. I am an avid sports fan & watch ESPN daily, especially during basketball. Loosing ESPN would be the last straw............so tired of all of the disputes in the name of saving the subscriber money..........then Dish raises their fees


----------



## david_jr (Dec 10, 2006)

For some reason this evening I no longer show a network logo in the Guide for any of the ESPN channels, the Disney channels or ABC Family--all the other channels are fine (I have the everything package w/ [email protected]). They are blank on both Hoppers and both Joeys. The schedule appears just fine, just missing the logos. Anyone else having the same issue? It's not a sign of something coming I hope.


Same here on the logos. Could be bad but could also be good. Hard to know for sure.


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

david_jr said:


> Same here on the logos. Could be bad but could also be good. Hard to know for sure.


It is "interesting" to note that the only channels in my guide that are missing logos at this time are the ESPNs, Disney, ABC Family and SoapNet. Things that make you go hmmmmm ....

Get me to midnight Friday (the end of the Nationwide race). Sorry for anything others might miss if darkness comes.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

Jason Whiddon said:


> Some of you are so far from reality when Dish has a dispute.
> 
> First, they aint working for you.
> Second, you arent going to save money.
> Third, people arent going to leave Directv of Cable to go to Dish because they dont have a channel.


First, they are working for us. But not only for us. As a middleman, they have to make both sides happy or they stop being the middleman. It's a warped and twisted relationship that allows the companies that produce content to charge more than they could if they were selling direct to customers. But if Dish stops making its customers happy, they will stop being a company.

I believe Dish could drop the price of their package significantly if they dropped ESPN. And I think they would have to. Otherwise, the people who don't like paying for ESPN would have no incentive to stay or switch to Dish. If the cost to Dish per subscriber is really as high as some claim, they could get an incredible cost advantage over their competition by dropping the price. They wouldn't do it because they want to make less money. They'd do it because sometimes the way to make the most money is to charge the lowest price.

You are correct that people won't switch to Dish just because they don't have a channel. But they will switch to Dish if it saves them $15/month compared to their alternatives. See argument above for why Dish would be able to charge less, and why they would want to.

Dish won't drop the price if this is just a contract dispute. If they intend to reach an agreement, the price will have to stay up so that they can maintain profitability after the content returns. But if they decide that they don't want ESPN at any price, then they can both drop the channel and the price. And then their advertising will go into high gear to attract customers to a service where "you don't have to pay for ESPN." And you can "save $15/month on our most popular package compared to DirecTV." It's a message that would play well with a large portion of the population.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

bwest602 said:


> For some reason this evening I no longer show a network logo in the Guide for any of the ESPN channels, the Disney channels or ABC Family--all the other channels are fine (I have the everything package w/ [email protected]).


The logos are there for me this morning.


----------



## david_jr (Dec 10, 2006)

Hey mine are back too. How do we read this now? I'm so confused. Hey at least there's something interesting going on in the world of Satellite, it has been a bit boring for a while since the newness of HWS wore off.


----------



## pmjones (Aug 3, 2012)

david_jr said:


> Hey mine are back too. How do we read this now? I'm so confused. Hey at least there's something interesting going on in the world of Satellite, it has been a bit boring for a while since the newness of HWS wore off.


The logos have been on and off during the last few weeks. First happened a few weeks ago, I believe.

Not sure what to make of it, either. I'm a little surprised this has dragged on to mid-October. Original contract expired on 9/30.

I think we all know what we want - ESPN and Disney family in HD (ESPNU, ABC Family, etc.) plus any channels we don't have (e.g. Disney Jr for the kids) without having to pay more. :grin:


----------



## Joe Tylman (Dec 13, 2012)

Just an observation. ESPN wouldn't lose 14 million customers. That number includes commercial accounts as well. Without knowing pure numbers let's say that the formula accounts for 1 million. After you reduce the number to 13 million you then have to take into account the people who don't have ESPN. Given my lack of knowledge with all of their packages as well as the international side of the house let's assume that it's about 10% so 1.3 million. That takes us down to 11.7 million subs. That number is still a heft amount in itself. Then you have to do the loss factor of cancellations as well as those who wouldn't sign up anymore. This is where opinion will really sink in but I think it's easy to say that the attrition rate would be about 1.7% per week it was off averaged over a month and then steadily increasing after 12 weeks. Charlie knows this level of churn will happen and he knows that even if they go dark for a day there will be a significantly higher level of churn as people won't be willing to take it on faith it won't happen again. 

On the flip side this would not make DISH go out of business like some have said. Even if they went to 7 million subs they would still be a solvent company they would just have to decrease their workforce and spending appropriately. They would have significantly lower acquisitions so their SAC payout would be very small leading them to be more cash positive even with reduced revenue once things settled down.

With all of that said neither side wants the channels to go dark and I don't believe this will be the negotiation where Charlie tests the waters with it. We all knew the skipping commercials feature would cost him in the long run and this is just the first of many battles over it.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

James Long said:


> It is "interesting" to note that the only channels in my guide that are missing logos at this time are the ESPNs, Disney, ABC Family and SoapNet. Things that make you go hmmmmm ....
> 
> Get me to midnight Friday (the end of the Nationwide race). Sorry for anything others might miss if darkness comes.


Is Soapnet still on?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Paul Secic said:


> Is Soapnet still??


Yep.


----------



## pfred (Feb 8, 2009)

The lack of activity here leads me to believe that we will continue to be forced to pay for ESPN in order to get AT120. Oh well, maybe next time.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

pfred said:


> The lack of activity here leads me to believe that we will continue to be forced to pay for ESPN in order to get AT120. Oh well, maybe next time.


...or, ESPN and all of the other channels that various subscribers watch will continue to be bundled with programming that almost no one watches, because it is more profitable for the programming providers and the carriers get to brag about how many channels that they provide.

I see no change in the basic economic principles that gave birth to bundling, so this business model will continue for the foreseeable future.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

No deal has been announced. Status Quo.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

pfred said:


> The lack of activity here leads me to believe that we will continue to be forced to pay for ESPN in order to get AT120. Oh well, maybe next time.


Or to state that another way... people will be forced to buy everything else in AT120 in order to get ESPN as well


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Jim5506 said:


> I see no change in the basic economic principles that gave birth to bundling, so this business model will continue for the foreseeable future.


Just sayin', twasn't economics that created bundling, twas technology. When cable TV was born, you subscribed or you didn't. A real physical filter on each subscriber's line was required for every premium channel (to block or unblock, the technology varied). The world of nigh-infinite channel permutations came at least a decade later.

Mind you, the business model that grew up around this bundling is the primary force to block any attempts to change it. But it's not like ESPN had that model in mind when it went on the air.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

FTA Michael said:


> Just sayin', twasn't economics that created bundling, twas technology. When cable TV was born, you subscribed or you didn't. A real physical filter on each subscriber's line was required for every premium channel (to block or unblock, the technology varied). The world of nigh-infinite channel permutations came at least a decade later.
> 
> Mind you, the business model that grew up around this bundling is the primary force to block any attempts to change it. But it's not like ESPN had that model in mind when it went on the air.


Not sure what you mean.... the technology used to block channels was definitely different in the beginning than now... but in the beginning it wasn't an "all or nothing" choice for consumers subscribing to cable.

Before the tiers, people had choices... then people were increasingly presented with a choice of pay-per-channel offering OR get a discount on a tier/bulk purchase of channels... and more people chose the bundled deal to save money... and eventually the cable companies just made the tiers the norm and slowly walked away from the individual offerings on most channels... and the channels themselves mostly liked this scenario too.

So... technology evolved to allow them to do what they wanted to do to serve what the customers were wanting them to do... it is hard to separate one from the other.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Not sure what you mean.... the technology used to block channels was definitely different in the beginning than now... but in the beginning it wasn't an "all or nothing" choice for consumers subscribing to cable.


It was if you're old enough.  I had cable back when the only channels carried were locals. The weather channel was a black and white security camera that was set to pan left then right across a circle of dials. Advertisements were placed on cards between the weather dials. The cable company did not own a satellite dish. Everything was received via an array of antennas or via microwave link to another array of antennas in the next town over.

At that point it was all or nothing.

Then one day cable got their satellite dish and they introduced The Weather Channel, TBS and (at an extra cost) Showtime or HBO. It was as Michael reported ... everything for one price with physical adapters used to block signals for non subscribers. (Some areas would install a block at non-subscriber's homes ... other areas would feed a noise signal close to the Showtime and HBO feeds and install a block that would kill the noise at subscriber's homes.)

At that point it was all or nothing except those two channels. The local cable company didn't want to fool around blocking individual channels other than the one's where they could make a lot of money unblocking them.

Technology advanced ... the original cable boxes that were used to adapt a non-cable ready TV to pick up the new channels between VHF channels 6 and 7 and between VHF 13 and UHF 14 eventually became descramblers (too many people figured out how to watch the subscription channels without a subscription). But until those descramblers were common any cable ready TV could pick up any cable channel ... all one tier unless it was a specifically blocked channel. An all or nothing situation.

When technology allowed the tier system started and some channels became a higher tier. Satellite got there first as their channels were nearly all scrambled. They could sell channels "a la carte" ... but people used to buying cable in tiers quickly became used to buying satellite in tiers - and more importantly programmers insisted on selling their channels in tiers and not a la carte.

ESPN is not interested in selling their primary channels to 14 million individual DISH subscribers. They want them all in one fell swoop - or at least all the English package subscribers.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

For fun... expectations of new channels whenever this deal gets done...

Channels Dish currently carries in SD, but we expect HD feeds to come with the new agreement:

*ABC Family
Disney East
Disney West
Disney XD
ESPNNews
ESPNU*

We may or may not get East/West HD feeds for Disney. They didn't have West in HD before... and Dish doesn't have HD West feeds for all channels it carries in SD.

Channels that Dish doesn't carry in SD or HD currently:

*Disney Jr.
Fusion
Longhorn Network
SEC Network*

Fusion launches on 10/28 I believe... so doesn't exist just yet, but at this point it would be amazing if it were not part of these negotiations.

SEC Network doesn't exist yet either... I think it launches in 2014... but I would be surprised if Disney isn't pushing it in this negotiation since it would be 5-10 years before the next one IF they sign a long term agreement like they did last time.

Depending on how they handle things... Longhorn Network could be a full-time SD, part-time "game only" HD feed... same could ultimately be true for SEC Network.

ALSO... we would be expecting possible access to ESPN3 internet-delivered programming and access via the WatchESPN app on mobile devices.

Am I missing anything?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Your list seems reasonable ...

I would not expect Disney West but that would be a nice bonus for the west coast viewers. DirecTV doesn't have it and DISH doesn't have a lot of bandwidth to give to duplicate/time delay programming.

ESPN is advertising SEC as August 2014. I saw an ad during the NASCAR race on Sunday. A generic "call your provider" ad not targeted at DISH customers - but obviously they are working deals. SD with HD games for both Longhorn and SEC seems to be a fair assumption - if only to use as leverage with DirecTV when their contract is up. But at some point DISH needs to get in to the 24/7 RSN game.

WatchESPN / ESPN3 is a natural for DISH. I would not mind seeing them as receiver based "on demand" channels streamed via the Internet to the Hopper along with the PC/cellphone distribution. Offering more content with zero satellite bandwidth is not a bad thing.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

James Long said:


> WatchESPN / ESPN3 is a natural for DISH. I would not mind seeing them as receiver based "on demand" channels streamed via the Internet to the Hopper along with the PC/cellphone distribution. Offering more content with zero satellite bandwidth is not a bad thing.


I'd love to see this added. My preferred Internet provider doesn't have ESPN3. And integrating it into the Hopper would be awesome.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

James Long said:


> Your list seems reasonable ...
> 
> I would not expect Disney West but that would be a nice bonus for the west coast viewers. DirecTV doesn't have it and DISH doesn't have a lot of bandwidth to give to duplicate/time delay programming.


I wonder if Dish would/could do Disney West for WA subscribers and Regular Disney for EA subs?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TBoneit said:


> I wonder if Dish would/could do Disney West for WA subscribers and Regular Disney for EA subs?


Too much of the country is on Western Arc.


----------



## koralis (Aug 10, 2005)

Unbinding ESPN and Disney contracts won't happen VOLUNTARILY. The government could get serious with its anti-monopoly laws and step in to fix the marketplace though. It will take consumer complaints to congress and/or the executive to get them to fight though.

At the same time the gov could stipulate that ESPN is virtually a monopoly to itself, and stipulate that ESPN is not allowed to withhold access. Contract disputes handled with FCC arbitors, etc. Things COULD change... they probably won't but it's conceptually possible.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Ergen Says Dish-Disney Relationship Strained as Talks Continue
Dish Network Corp. (DISH) Chairman Charlie Ergen said his company's relationship with Walt Disney Co. "has not been our best" as the two sides try to hammer out a renewal of their contract, more than a month after the last one expired.
While Ergen is "cautiously optimistic" that the satellite-TV provider will be able to reach an agreement with Disney, nothing is final yet, he said in an interview on Bloomberg Television's "Political Capital with Al Hunt."

See the rest here: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-01/ergen-says-dish-disney-relationship-strained-as-talks-continue.html?cmpid=msnmoney#2


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I don't know how much you can read into statements made in an interview. Charlie isn't likely to say "yes, everything is awesome" because it undercuts his company's negotiations... so he kind of has to be a little pessimistic when asked about it I think.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

koralis said:


> Unbinding ESPN and Disney contracts won't happen VOLUNTARILY. The government could get serious with its anti-monopoly laws and step in to fix the marketplace though. It will take consumer complaints to congress and/or the executive to get them to fight though.


I don't think the government really wants to get into the business of running entertainment companies. They've had enough troubles trying to regulate and control the broadcast world to want to take on more with the pay-TV stuff. Historically, when the government "fixes" a market, prices go up or availability goes down. Market prices are controlled by the laws of supply and demand and you can't change the prices arbitrarily (i.e. by government edict) without impacting either the supply or the demand.

ESPN is not a monopoly. They are a copyright holder, and they hold the copyrights to some sports programming. But with the growth of college-conference networks like BTN, Pac12 and the like, it is getting harder and harder to argue that you must have ESPN if you want to watch sports. In fact, less than half the major sports programming in any week is on ESPN. If you want to argue that ESPN is a monopoly, then you have to argue that every copyright holder is a monopoly and thus all of them should be stripped of their ownership rights.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I don't know how much you can read into statements made in an interview. Charlie isn't likely to say "yes, everything is awesome" because it undercuts his company's negotiations... so he kind of has to be a little pessimistic when asked about it I think.


I'm just impressed that everyone seems to be acting like mature adults in this negotiation even though it's this far overdue.


----------



## koralis (Aug 10, 2005)

Prices can't go up. They're already as high as the market will allow at any given point in time, and they keep pushing it higher every negotiation.

Prices for Pro Sports are not controlled by the laws of supply and demand... they WOULD be if an individual consumer were allowed to not buy ESPN, then when they raise rates their viewership drops. ESPN has monopoly pricing power, in that they get to dictate a contract and the other side has no other choice but to accept it or go out of business. EPSN, with that sort of power, doesn't allow the consumer a choice as to whether a price hike is justified or not. So to claim that ESPN follows the law of supply and demand is ridiculous unless you're asserting that going without TV in its entirety is how people vote with their feet for the actions of one company?


ESPN is not "merely" a copyright holder either. They use their entrenched position in the market to guarantee that no one can outbid them in that market. As a result, they're the only game in town and there will be no usurpers. This is pretty much the definition of a broken market, and exactly the kind of thing that the Consitution authorizes the government to intervene with... regulating commerce.


The exact fix could be one of many things... for example, ESPN could be barred from buying more than X number of exclusives in any given sport, meaning that the NFL, NHL, etc, etc would have to sell to other channels also. With more options, ESPN's power is degraded significantly. (Or alternatively, you bar NFL, etc, from negotiating the exclusive contracts. Amounts to the same thing, ultimately.)


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

But prices can and will go up. That's a sad fact.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

That doomsday scenario has limits, though... Ok, say Dish says "bye" and ESPN goes dark on Dish... guarantee the next DirecTV price negotiation will go rougher for ESPN. ESPN needs to be on a bunch of providers (Dish, DirecTV, cable, etc.) so that they can pit them all against each other.

We've talked about this before... People/viewers mistakenly think they are the customer. We are not the customer. We are the product!

Dish sells us to ESPN and says "IF you take this, we give you access to our customers"... while simultaneously ESPN says "Carry our channel, and these customers will subscribe to Dish"... They have a symbiotic relationship selling us, the viewer, to themselves.

We think we are the customer... but in many ways we are not. That's why our choice has largely evolved to play or not play... we gave up our negotiating power willingly over the course of the evolution of pay TV when we kept saying "more channels and hurry" and "gimme more for a discount"... there went our power to negotiate packages vs individual channels... we gave that up and became the product.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

Stewart Vernon said:


> We've talked about this before... People/viewers mistakenly think they are the customer. We are not the customer. We are the product!


Well, yes and no. We are actually both.

Consider ESPN. They get monthly revenue from each subscriber. In that sense, we are the customer. But they also get advertising revenue based on viewing numbers, and in that sense, we are the product (eyeballs) that is being sold.

Now consider your programming provider. In every real sense, you are the customer. You either choose to buy their product or not. Dish negotiates to try to get the best deal from programming providers like ESPN, and their negotiating power is very much related to their current subscriber numbers. Much like WalMart tries to get the lowest price from Heinz Ketchip so they can get more customers to shop at their store. It isn't because Dish wants to save us money, though. It's to get more subscribers than their competition by offering more product (channels) for less money. As far as Dish is concerned, you are the customer because they don't get any money from ESPN for delivering viewers to them. Just as WalMart doesn't get paid for delivering more customers to Heinz.

If the day comes when Dish believes that they could make more money by not offering ESPN, they will do it. They have no obligation to their customers to continue to provide a specific channel. But if they want to keep their customers, they have to provide the best cost/benefit solution to those customers, or we'll end up shopping elsewhere. And at least thus far, ESPN has not charged enough to convince any programming provider that they'd be better off without them.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

Stewart Vernon said:


> For fun... expectations of new channels whenever this deal gets done...
> 
> Channels Dish currently carries in SD, but we expect HD feeds to come with the new agreement:
> 
> ...


ESPN goal line / ESPN Buzzer Beater / ESPN Bases Loaded


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

One thing I do not understand is why Dish moved ESPN Classic into the Sports package only, as the other ESPN channels are with the regular fare. I am not a big sports fan, but I do like some of the old stuff they have on ESPN Classic, but it is not worth the cost of the sport package just for that one channel. With Dish dropping so many other channels like Cloo, G4, and KBS World, it would be nice to get ESPN back in the regular package.

Patrick


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Anything new with Disney and ESPN?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

One thing I do not understand is why Dish moved ESPN Classic into the Sports package only, as the other ESPN channels are with the regular fare. I am not a big sports fan, but I do like some of the old stuff they have on ESPN Classic, but it is not worth the cost of the sport package just for that one channel. With Dish dropping so many other channels like Cloo, G4, and KBS World, it would be nice to get ESPN back in the regular package.

Patrick


Espn did that on most systems. They did it to get espnu into the regular packages so it could get better ad dollars off its college current stuff rather than the classics. It was basically a swap on most systems in terms of placement for espnu and espn classic.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

According to this the talks with Disney regarding abc, ESPN, Disney have been tied to settling the Hopper litigation and are supposed to be close to a resolution. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-31/disney-said-close-to-deal-settling-dish-ad-skipping-suit.html?cmpid=msnmoney


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

tsmacro said:


> According to this the talks with Disney regarding abc, ESPN, Disney have been tied to settling the Hopper litigation and are supposed to be close to a resolution. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-31/disney-said-close-to-deal-settling-dish-ad-skipping-suit.html?cmpid=msnmoney


Well if they made the ability to use auto hop a paid option then that would be fine and would give people the choice on the higher rates and could cover all shows. But instead it will likely get passed to everyone,.


----------



## LazhilUT (Mar 24, 2012)

OK so is there a deal or not?


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

LazhilUT said:


> OK so is there a deal or not?


Just trying to figure out how much the Hopper users have to pay extra.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

LazhilUT said:


> OK so is there a deal or not?


not, when there is Dish will surely issue a press release.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Curtis0620 said:


> Just trying to figure out how much the Hopper users have to pay extra.


That would be $5.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

tsmacro said:


> not, when there is Dish will surely issue a press release.


It's sure taking forever to make a deal.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Contract signed and press release announced.

Continue the discussion in the new thread *here*.


----------

