# COX announces ESPN-HD pricing...



## Ken_F (Jan 13, 2003)

> We are pleased to announce on Sunday, March 30 ESPN HD will be added to our High Definition lineup! Cox Communications of Las Vegas will be one of the first cable systems in the Country to offer ESPN HD! As of this morning, neither DirecTV or Dish Network have announced their addition of this new channel, making our competitive advantage even better!
> 
> ESPN HD will be carried on channel 705 and offered via two options:
> · We will sell it as a single channel for *$5.00/month*.
> ...


Other threads report that COX is currently in negotations for the Hdnet channels. So it looks like COX is looking to bundle Discovery, ESPN-HD, the HDnet channels, and perhaps Bravo HD for a fee in the range of $10/mo.


----------



## Mike123abc (Jul 19, 2002)

Now that is they pricing I would like to see all three for $10/month. They are bundling for less than Dish charges for DHDT alone.


----------



## Ken_F (Jan 13, 2003)

Insight Communications will also be offering ESPN-HD, Discovery, and two HDnet channels for $9.99. Service Electric is selling the same package at $11.99, though SE also says they will be adding more channels at no extra cost.


----------



## Scott Greczkowski (Mar 21, 2002)

It still not worth it. 98% of the shows on ESPN will be in SD format. I already get ESPN in SD in my regular package.

Now if ESPN had a majority of its shows in HD, then I would say its worth it.


----------



## Ken_F (Jan 13, 2003)

Scott,

People watch ESPN for the sports, not for the repeats of SportsCenter, Baseball Tonight, etc all day long. Plenty of people watch CBS-HDTV, despite the fact that only 6.5% to 7% of CBS' content is in HDTV every week.

By my calculation, 100 events this year * 3 hrs / event = 300 hours. Divide that by the ~6500 hours remaining in the year and you get about 5%, a bit more than 2%. Of course, not all ESPN HDTV broadcasts will be 3 hours long, but some of ESPN's HDTV coverage, including that for the X-Games, will be well in excess of 3 hours a day. Next year, ESPN plans to offer >150 sporting events in HDTV, up 50% from this year.


----------



## Mike123abc (Jul 19, 2002)

Well the difference is CBS-HD is free, you do not pay again for the channel when you pay for the non hdtv one.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

The story here is not what this or that person thinks of the price that a cable co is charging for ESPNHD contrasted to his or her opinion of whether it is "worth it" or not based on his or her views of the content.

The story is that Cox cable accomodated its customers and provided a service that many want. DirecTV and Dish did not.


----------



## Eyedox (Nov 25, 2002)

Disney is greedy ... ESPN-HD is overpriced ... its MOSTLY SD this first year or two. Why would I pay TWICE for ESPN for the same simulcast crap? $6.99 for ESPN-HD *and* DiscHD combined is a pretty good deal ... if they add HDNet channels to that and charge $9.99 total, that is alright with me. But Dish charges $7.99 for ONE channel of DiscHD which repeats the same stuff over and over every 4 hours. Rip off. Dish will need to be competitive with the cable HD tiers like Cox if they want more than 10 people nationwide to bite.


----------



## sampatterson (Aug 27, 2002)

Not that I care that much but ESPN-HD will be significantly better PQ than the normal ESPN feed, as it won't be overcompressed by Dish or Direct.


----------



## tojohnso (Apr 2, 2003)

I'm sorry, but $5 for a single channel? Guess I can understand why the DBS providers didn't go for it. Of course we are talking COX, which is known in my area for charging a lot for their services.

If there was a charge of $5 per channel and you had a 135 channel DBS package, it would cost you $675/month. I don't know how much ESPN or ESPN2 cost per month per subscriber for regular cable or DBS providers, but it can't be anything close to $5 per subscriber. Sure, it may be cheaper in a package, but come on, that's a ton of money for just one channel.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Please $5 is nothing.


----------



## ibglowin (Sep 10, 2002)

I am really enjoying the ***free*** HD Final Four coverage from CBS. This weekend should be awesome and the championship game on Monday will be hard to top as well. Then we have ***freee*** Masters coverage coming up after that.

I can wait for ESPN-HD until the price is right so to speak.


----------



## Randy_B (Apr 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by James_F _
> *Please $5 is nothing.  *


SURE! Applied across the board, that would make AT100 and Total Choice more than $500 a month. Gosh, your right James_F. Chump change.  :blush:

Cablecos have never been concerned on the price. Gouging is part of their business plan. Explains why nearly 20M consumers told them to take a hike.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

But Randy it is not. You are right, if every channel did this we'd not be able to afford TV. Sports programming has always been more expensive than other types. ESPN-HD if it has HD sports programming would be worth $150 a year to me. Sure I can see others not wanting to pay for it which is why doing it this way is great.


----------



## Scott Greczkowski (Mar 21, 2002)

Unfortunately James, 99% of whats on ESPN-HD is NOT in HD. That to me is the problem.

When they have more (and I mean a lot more) content in HD it might be worth the price.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Look Scott, its not about % its about making this work by supporting them. I really don't care if SportsCenter is in HD, I care about MLB and NCAA Football games in HD. Well worth the $5. You can't honestly sit there and not say you would pay $5 a month to watch 4 MLB games in HD.

Why down on ESPN-HD Scott? You seemed to be so high on it until Dish didn't get it.

As SamC said. Its about a Cable company providing a service to their customers where DBS again fails. Its not like Cox is going to charge their customers more for the service unless they want it. With DBS we never get the choice.


----------



## Scott Greczkowski (Mar 21, 2002)

Why am I so down on ESPN-HD?

Because there is no friggen HD on the channel. Thats why.

So far the schedule of games in HD on ESPN has not impressed me and all the teams are ones I never watch.

Again if ESPN-HD did indeed have regular HD content it would be worth it, but at the moment I can't see paying twice for a channel I already get.


----------



## Ken_F (Jan 13, 2003)

> May 18
> Sunday Night Baseball (MLB), Philadelphia at Houston
> 
> May 20
> ...


I personally think that is a pretty impressive HDTV schedule....but I suppose others may disagree. I will be supremely disappointed if Dish Network does not have ESPN-HD in time for these events.

Nielsen ratings show that the only programs that 500,000+ of the 82 million ESPN subscribers actually watch are the sporting events. These are the events that most people care about. And many of these events (and all of the major ones) are in HDTV. Most people watch ESPN for the MLB, NHL, NBA, NFL Sunday Night Football, and college football, and virtually 100% of this is in HDTV on ESPN-HD.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Scott Greczkowski _
> *Why am I so down on ESPN-HD?
> 
> Because there is no friggen HD on the channel. Thats why.
> ...


Scott, you can't be serious. You can't spare a latte a month to watch HD Sports?


----------



## Scott Greczkowski (Mar 21, 2002)

Latte yuck, give me a beer. 

I believe ESPN-HD was launched too early. What kind of station launches with only ONE show in HD for their first week?

Look I happen to know that the USA Network is gearing up to do HDTV of Golf, from what I know they are planning on offering the special HD feed for free to anyone who wants to carry it. You don't see USA network running out and starting a HD channel because they are carrying just as much HD as ESPN-HD has since its sign on. 

Again ESPN-HD good idea and WORTH paying for if it had HD content.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

OK fair enough. I feel its worth it with their current lineup.


----------



## Ken_F (Jan 13, 2003)

Scott,

So your main complaint is that the highlight shows are not in HDTV? There isn't much HDTV on ESPN-HD now, obviously because there aren't many sporting events on ESPN right now!

ESPN isn't a 24/7 channel that does sporting events around the clock. They only do two baseball games a week, one NFL game per week, one or two NHL games a week, one or two NBA basketball games per week, etc. The vast majority of these events will be broadcast in HDTV on ESPN-HD this year.

The rest of ESPN's live sports is stuff like women's pro billiards, figure skating, women's national high school cheeleading championship, cheer and dance championships, and smaller tennis tournaments. Are you really so upset that this stuff isn't in HDTV?


----------



## Scott Greczkowski (Mar 21, 2002)

Yup, the name is ESPN-HD not ESPN-Once in awhile HD.

All HD ALL THE TIME not once in a great while.


----------



## Ken_F (Jan 13, 2003)

Scott,

But can't you say the same thing for CBS, ABC, NBC, and Showtime?


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

But Scott, there isn't enough HD content. Most HD channels repeat all their shows all the time. We need this kind of channel to further the HD experience.


----------



## durl (Mar 27, 2003)

I agree with Scott on this one. ESPN-HD isn't a good deal at $5 a month. This is due to the fact that it will not be a 24-hr/day HD network. If they broadcast 10 hours of HD a week, and you paid the same percentage per hour as you would for a regular 24-hr/day network, it calculates out to about $90/month if you use the base of $5/month for the channel. $90 a month to see the NBA? No thanks. 

If DBS companies want to offer the channel ala carte, that's fine; They're meeting the need of the consumers. That's why there HAS to be more to it than they simply don't want to give the customers what they want. Companies offer services if they know that they're not going to lose money on it...plain and simple.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

So by offering it at $5 to those who want it is a good idea? That is what seems to be what Cox is doing. :shrug:


----------



## durl (Mar 27, 2003)

Cox is doing it because they're going to be making money by carrying it. (At least you HOPE they are if you're a stockholder.) Perhaps Disney gave them a better deal than what they're offering satellite providers. I go back to my point, a company is ALWAYS going to give customers what they want if they can provide it in a cost-effective manner. There's GOT to be other issues at play here. We need to get the silly notion out of our head that the leaders of satellite providers are sitting in their offices snickering about how they're keeping ESPN-HD away from customers just for the fun of it.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

No I don't think that is the case, but I think they want to bundle it and ESPN wants them to charge the $5 that other cable cos are using. Its hard to bundle a bunch together when half to cost goes to one channel. NOW, what I'm angry about is they won't even give us the option to get the channel outside the bundle. I don't want Discovery HD, but if they bundle it I'm forced to get it. It goes both way IMO.


----------



## Ken_F (Jan 13, 2003)

James,

As discussed in the other thread, the price for ESPN-HD is roughly $0.80 per HD subscriber. ESPN has encouraged providers to bundle HDTV channels into packages; Cox currently offers Discovery and ESPN-HD in a bundle for $6.99. 

Also, half that doesn't go to Discovery. Discovery's bundle price is entirely separate from its a la carte price. Bundled, Discovery Theater costs about $1.00.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

OK I wrote my thought wrong. I was talking about a $10 package where Dish was going to offer ESPN-HD and other channels. This is getting WAY to hypothetical for me so I'm going to hit eject.


----------



## Scott Greczkowski (Mar 21, 2002)

> But Scott, there isn't enough HD content.


Exactly my point.

Thanks James. 

BTW has anyone noticed that the ESPN-SD channel has been looking really good for the past few days?


----------



## Mike123abc (Jul 19, 2002)

The issue also is that there are 200 other channels that may want to start a HDTV feed at some time in the future. R/L DBS was pushing that they wanted 40 channels of HDTV. I do not think that they were going to be charging $200/month for the 40 feeds of HDTV.

A business plan needs to be developed by the content providers that can provide HDTV for minimal costs. That is what Showtime and HBO have been doing. They have been working at it for years to get the costs down of converting programming material to HDTV.

The same can be said of the major Networks. They now have HDTV getting down to only a small premium to normal programming. CBS is now doing a soap opera in HDTV, this is a test to work out the details of doing HDTV at minimal extra costs.

Yes HDTV is a huge investment in new equipment. But, if it is phased in properly as the need for new equipment is needed anyways (yes those cameras and editing suites do need updating on a regular basis), the extra costs are not that great.

It appears that ESPN recognised this originally and wanted ESPN-HD to be a minimal cost, maybe even FREE. This probably was developed and someone at Disney had a heart attack... What FREE? HAS ESPN LOST ITS MIND?

In ten years or so I expect ALL my cable channels to be HDTV or at least Enhanced Definition (852x480p). I do not expect not to be paying much more for it than I am now (adjusting for inflation of course).

The smart companies now are grabbing up bandwith to get their early claim before all the DBS companies run out of space. Cable companies have the space and will try to press DBS on this big time as soon as they can. If my local cable company were to offer 100 HDTV/EDTV channels and DBS did not, guess where I would be... the cost savings of DBS would not compare.


----------



## Scott Greczkowski (Mar 21, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ken_F _
> *Scott,
> 
> But can't you say the same thing for CBS, ABC, NBC, and Showtime? *


Sure you could but by the same tolken you don't pay extra for those channels, in the case of HBO and Showtime they are included in the package at no extra charge.

I vote we rename the channel "ESPN-Sometimes HD"


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

But Scott, without a outlet for HD Sports, how will we be able to move forward. ESPN in the early 1980's was showing only AWA wrestling and now has NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL and others. 

Yes you don't pay extra for Showtime and HBO, but you know once more have HD, you'll see them as a seperate package.


----------



## Scott Greczkowski (Mar 21, 2002)

Is the NBA currently showing games for FREE in HD now? (Yes)

Will the PGA be showing Golf for free in HD? (Yes)

Has HDnet been showing MLB, NHL and NBA game in HD? (Yes)

Therefore I don't see a point for it at this moment.

Again I will say that ESPN-HD was launched too early. An HD Channel should have a good portion of it's schedule in HD.

Why pay twice to watch ESPN in SD? Again when ESPN ramps up HD operations I would be all for paying for the channel to see things in HD,


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Scott choice... 

Do you have HDNet yet?

You complained about the schedule on ESPN, but not about what CBS and others show? How about having to think about which HD game to watch? 

You and I are looking at this two ways. I look at it as another way to get even a little HD content. You are just focusing in on the fact that they won't have 24/7 HD. We are years away from that.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Scott Greczkowski _
> *Is the NBA currently showing games for FREE in HD now? (Yes)
> 
> Will the PGA be showing Golf for free in HD? (Yes)
> ...


Will the PGA be showing Martha Burk and a bunch of ugly chicks picketing outside the gates of Augusta for free in HD?! (Yes).......


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

Overall I think Scott is pretty much on target with this. The comparisons are being made with FREE HD, to ESPN NOT FREE HD. Even with most evening broadcasts in HD, I would not pay very much if any more for HD of CBS,ABC, etc.. And where does it end? I am then actually paying twice for the same program. As great as HD is, (and it is a fantastic picture) I can't keep paying over and above what I now pay for each channel that comes along in HD. If this becomes the trend, don't you think it will slow down or kill HD? If enthusiasts here are very hesitant to pay extra, certainly the vast majority won't. Certainly a package that includes programming not offered otherwise, or as Scott points out, with much much more HD programming (as in almost 100%) would be very inticing. Untill then I can wait.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

So what do you propose? Wait? We have the equipment so why can't we use it? :shrug:


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

Sorry - double post ..


----------



## Scott Greczkowski (Mar 21, 2002)

> _Originally posted by James_F _
> Scott choice...
> 
> Do you have HDNet yet?


Nope but I can get it if I want it. And so can everyone else.


> You complained about the schedule on ESPN, but not about what CBS and others show? How about having to think about which HD game to watch?


Hey CBS is free for me, I am not paying extra to see something in HD.



> You are just focusing in on the fact that they won't have 24/7 HD. We are years away from that.


And that's why I say ESPN/DISNEY should not be charging for ESPN-HD at this time, in the future when there is enough programming then I have no problem paying something for it. But at the moment why pay for the same channel twice?

You keep thinking future James, nothing wrong with that or what you are saying, but I am talking about NOW.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

> _Originally posted by James_F _
> *So what do you propose? Wait? We have the equipment so why can't we use it? :shrug: *


Hard to argue that. We want HD to succeed. Maybe some of us will feel very differenty with good bundling and alot of HD content. I do worry that the model of charging more for HD may not work for the majority of viewers. We also have to remember this is still new technology and it always costs more at first.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

As long as there is HD content on ESPN-HD, I don't view it as the same channel. Sure, I'd like it to be cheaper, but I've invested thousands of dollars in equipment and I want content....


----------



## Jerry 42 (Feb 25, 2003)

Like James I would sign up for ESPN HD la carte but I do not have that option. Of course I would like an overall HD tier option but now I do not have any choice.

What also interests me is that this forum seem to be more open to criticism of E* and "Charlie" but now it seems to be very defensive of them. Perhaps it its just this topic. 

Over the last 6 years Dish has been pretty good and I have had few compliants. However I would suggest they look at HD sports a little harder and find a plan to provide more HD programing.


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

How many of you are paying dish $7.99 /month for Discovery HD? I don't have HD, but I understand that the reciever rental is $10.00 and ESPN & Discovery are tiered at $6.99 month from Cox. If I had a HD Set, I'd be on cable now. I wouldn't be out $600 for a receiver (plus whatever they want for the 8PSK module) and pay a dollar more a month for one of two channels. It's just another example of how cable is using its capabilties to out perform satellite.


----------



## Mike123abc (Jul 19, 2002)

Just wait as soon as the Digital Cable ready TVs come out that can do Digital cable and HDTV Digital Cable without the $10/month box. Then cable will look even better. Look for them by Christmas.


----------



## Scott Greczkowski (Mar 21, 2002)

Mike that may be the case in some area, but in many areas they dont have the bandwidth to offer HD yet.

I am predicting that in the next few years all satellite receivers sold will be HD / PVR receivers. You will not be able to buy a non HD receiver.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

We'll see. As Mike said its very hard not to look toward cable....


----------



## Mike123abc (Jul 19, 2002)

I would be skeptical too, until my parents town was just upgraded to a 900MHZ system (they just did my parents neighborhood). This is in a town of 25k people! The cable guy said they had about 600MHZ before now they were going to 900. My town (100k people) just got upgraded too. Once they have the fiber in they can upgrade pretty easily by just upgrading the neighborhood boxes. DBS better get on the ball, or cable will pass them.


----------



## Jerry 42 (Feb 25, 2003)

Scott, I hope there is a "next few years" for Dish. 

Over time I purchased systems for my 2 kids and guided 3 neigbors to Dish plus my 2 6000s and 301 boxes.

I will feel very bad if Dish becomes an also ran or is not there.


----------



## jeffwtux (Apr 27, 2002)

I just think this shows that cable will eventually win out in well clustered and fairly priced cable districts. Fortunately for Dish and Direct, millions of people live in cities, towns, and suburbs that aren't. It's all about clustering for cable.


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Scott Greczkowski _
> *I am predicting that in the next few years all satellite receivers sold will be HD / PVR receivers. You will not be able to buy a non HD receiver. *


I was given this statement in 1999 regarding the future of analog sets. I was told that by 2005, there would be no analog broadcasts and that analog sets would basically be a heap of junk. Until HD is the standard, which I don't see happening this decade, SD receivers will continue to be produced and sold to the masses. I almost feel like going into my rant about how much a dual tuner E* PVR costs vs. D*, but I don't want to stray too far off topic. I've got a 508 and will stay with E*, but I wish they would bring the cost of their current receivers in line with D*. HD/PVR receivers won't be affordable to the masses for some time. I wouldn't count on them being the standard for some time (2011???)


----------



## Jerry 42 (Feb 25, 2003)

Rants are not all bad Dennis Miller has made lots of $$$ with them.


----------



## Mike123abc (Jul 19, 2002)

There really is no reason any more for a standard definition DBS box. HDTV being standard in every box will mean that they can see any channel that the DBS provider puts out. They will not have to duplicate HDTV/Standard definition any more. Yes you will be able to watch since it will downconvert.

They should have made the 721 able to recieve HDTV but just not record it if it is a problem.


----------

