# What would you do if Dish dropped ESPN?



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

See article at http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/ergen_end_run_e5VtRyDRnE2f9HyESUBTnM#ixzz1XSJjCzEq



> Charlie Ergen's Dish Network could be headed for a split with ESPN over escalating rights fees, The Post has learned.
> 
> The battle was given new life yesterday when ESPN announced a $15.2 billion, eight-year rights extension deal with the NFL for "Monday Night Football," starting in 2014.
> 
> ...


So if it happened would you be happy or looking for another provider?


----------



## Dave (Jan 29, 2003)

Would be glad to see the discounted fees from losing ESPN.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Not a Dish customer, so I didn't vote, but if DirecTV dropped ESPN, I would drop them. 

If it was just a carriage dispute and ESPN was taken off for a while, I would just call Comcast and get cable until the dispute was over (easy since I have Comcast internet). But if it was a full drop and not coming back, I would change.


----------



## klang (Oct 14, 2003)

I seldom watch any sports so I wouldn't notice if the channel wasn't there. I do NOT want my package price to increase because of ESPN.


----------



## Lazy Senior (Jan 24, 2005)

If Dish raises rates because of ESPN I say good bye to Dish. All TV provider Rates are already too high. I am close to giving up on all TV providers except those that are free.

ESPN is already overpriced.* Take it out *of all packages. Those that like it can pay the higher prices. I say stop forcing those that could care less about sports programs to subsidize rates for sports lovers.


----------



## Ira Lacher (Apr 24, 2002)

I say, it's time for a la carte!


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Celebrate, celebrate, dance to the music!!

TaTa athletic supporters!!!!


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Dave said:


> Would be glad to see the discounted fees from losing ESPN.


What makes you think Dish would pass the discount along to you if ESPN dropped? If it was a separate package maybe but if they just drop the channel they will either fill it or not and still you will pay the same amount.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

klang said:


> I seldom watch any sports so I wouldn't notice if the channel wasn't there. I do NOT want my package price to increase because of ESPN.


Are you okay with losing ESPN and still paying the same price?


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Lazy Senior said:


> If Dish raises rates because of ESPN I say good bye to Dish. All TV provider Rates are already too high. I am close to giving up on all TV providers except those that are free.
> 
> ESPN is already overpriced.* Take it out *of all packages. Those that like it can pay the higher prices. I say stop forcing those that could care less about sports programs to subsidize rates for sports lovers.


Every person could say the same thing though. I could say stop making me pay for music channels because I hate them but they are in all the packages. Maybe that is what you love. Until we are the ones deciding the packages its just not gonna happen. In the long run its better to spread out the fee's over more people. I look at it this way, we all are paying for some unwanted channels. Thats just the way it is.


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

It's different when the unwanted channel is $4 a head.


----------



## gpollock87 (Apr 13, 2011)

couldn't do without my nascar


----------



## klang (Oct 14, 2003)

joshjr said:


> Are you okay with losing ESPN and still paying the same price?


I doubt very much we would see a price reduction. I certainly would not change providers over it.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

RAD said:


> See article at http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/ergen_end_run_e5VtRyDRnE2f9HyESUBTnM#ixzz1XSJjCzEq
> 
> So if it happened would you be happy or looking for another provider?


Now we have MLBN, NFL Network. Dish should put all of the ESPNS in a seperaate tier.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

The notion that Dish could exist without ESPN is dreaming. We always see a few here that say they hate sports and it raises their rates. Without sports subsidizing all the loser channels like Opera etc there would be no Dish Network or Directv. These providers made their mark because of offering a wide choice of sports programming. If ESPN goes away Dish will soon follow, or merge with Directv.


----------



## retiredTech (Oct 27, 2003)

ESPN is more expensive than most other TV. That is the reason that they should be sold seperately.

"Real" sports viewers will pay what ever ESPN charges and would pay for ESPN seperately.

ESPN has definetly priced itself into a seperate tier.

There is a good amount of sports on other channels, why should everyone fund ESPN when we don't want over priced ESPN? 

The time has come for the rest of us to stop funding "the sports habit".


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

retiredTech said:


> ESPN is more expensive than most other TV. That is the reason that they should be sold seperately.
> 
> "Real" sports viewers will pay what ever ESPN charges and would pay for ESPN seperately.
> 
> ...


Like I said we all fund some channels we dont like. There is no difference with ESPN or any other sports channel. I dont watch AMC, National Geo, Travel Channel, HGTV, Food, etc. Why should I have to pay for them? Its because everyone paying for this crap combined keeps the overall costs lower or else we fall into more and more packages that in the end drive the price up due to less subscribers to each package.


----------



## Reaper (Jul 31, 2008)

Not currently a Dish customer but plan to go back to them after my contract with Frontier expires next year. If they didn't have ESPN, I wouldn't go back to Dish. I would pay extra for it on a sports tier.


----------



## dishrich (Apr 23, 2002)

The OP really should have added this as a selection:

*Leave my current prog provider & switch TO DISH (if the price was right)*

I could really see myself AND others (non-sports) subs consider switching TO DISH, IF dish reduced the price on it's base programming packages accordingly.
HOWEVER, DISH needs to go one better & also drop ALL RSN's out of base packages as well. While they may not be as expensive as ESPN, they are STILL expensive nontheless, & if they could get ESPN-less subs to switch, there is NO reason why those same subs would want (to pay for) RSN(s) as well.


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

I'd love to see all sports in a separate tier so all subs don't have to shoulder the huge cost. Last time I checked the sports channels alone cost about the same as all other channels combined. Treating them as premiums is long overdue. Personally I would jump for joy if all sports channels went away and my bill dropped accordingly. If I were a sports fan, I wouldn't be happy, but knowing how expensive that content is, I'd have no problem paying a premium for it if that were an option.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

mdavej said:


> I'd love to see all sports in a separate tier so all subs don't have to shoulder the huge cost. Last time I checked the sports channels alone cost about the same as all other channels combined. Treating them as premiums is long overdue. Personally I would jump for joy if all sports channels went away and my bill dropped accordingly. If I were a sports fan, I wouldn't be happy, but knowing how expensive that content is, I'd have no problem paying a premium for it if that were an option.


If that was the only factor that would be one thing. How is ESPN supposed to gauge it? One day they have 12 million subs at $4 a pop and the next day they have 6 million at $4 a pop. Sports channels would not be the only ones to go up. Some people would only want the sports to and drop the other channels so in the end all channels and packages would lose subs and money just to satisfy who exactly? I'm not really sure who comes out ahead here in this scenario.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Don't you think someone would have a sports free option by now if was a viable option?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Multiple things here in no certain order...

1. What makes anyone think this only affects Dish? You can quit Dish and move to DirecTV if your rates go up because of ESPN getting new rates... but soon that will happen at DirecTV and cable too... so you won't stay ahead of the price increase for long.

2. Dish probably would lose a lot of people if they lost ESPN entirely. I'm sure they will push hard... but eventually they will have to compromise and keep the channel.

3. No way this is just about ESPN. Currently, Dish doesn't have ESPNUHD at all, and dropped DisneyHD, DisneyXD HD, ABC Family HD, and ESPNNews HD feeds over dispute. You can be guaranteed that these and other ABC/Disney owned channels are ALL part of the next negotiations... so you wouldn't just be risking loss of ESPN. Disney wouldn't agree to a deal for the non-ESPN channels unless Dish agreed to those as well.

I might think of more things... but those were the first to pop into mind.


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

joshjr said:


> If that was the only factor that would be one thing. How is ESPN supposed to gauge it? One day they have 12 million subs at $4 a pop and the next day they have 6 million at $4 a pop. Sports channels would not be the only ones to go up. Some people would only want the sports to and drop the other channels so in the end all channels and packages would lose subs and money just to satisfy who exactly? I'm not really sure who comes out ahead here in this scenario.


Netflix recently did just this. They researched what impact a separate tier for their DVD business and the associated huge price jump and loss of subs would have. ESPN has chosen to become a premium provider but still have full access to a basic cable audience. They can't have it both ways anymore. Charlie will say no, and ESPN will lose 14 million viewers overnight, or they accept the limitations of being a premium channel and price themselves accordingly to cover their costs with a more limited audience. Millions are willing to pay big bucks for Sunday Ticket. I don't see why they wouldn't be willing to also pay for ESPN.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

mdavej said:


> Charlie will say no, and ESPN will lose 14 million viewers overnight, or they accept the limitations of being a premium channel and price themselves accordingly to cover their costs with a more limited audience. Millions are willing to pay big bucks for Sunday Ticket. I don't see why they wouldn't be willing to also pay for ESPN.


I think ESPN would take the chance of losing Dish before they would allow themselves to be put on a separate tier. Because once that ball starts rolling, all providers would want them on a separate tier and that is most likely unacceptable to them.

So the question is: Can Charlie afford to lose X% of his subs if he goes without ESPN more than ESPN can afford to do without Dish's subs?


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Losing ESPN would be huge. "Tostitos Bowl Championship Series (BCS) National Championship on ESPN was watched by an average of 27,316,000 viewers (P2+) and 17,718,000 households, more than any program in the history of cable television. The previous record was an ESPN Monday Night Football contest, Green Bay at Minnesota on October 5, 2009, with an audience of 21,839,000 viewers (P2+) and 15,136,000 homes, based on a 15.3 coverage rating."


----------



## SamNot (Sep 3, 2011)

la carte!


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

sigma1914 said:


> Losing ESPN would be huge. "Tostitos Bowl Championship Series (BCS) National Championship


I can get a huge bowl of Tostitos without ESPN.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

mdavej said:


> Millions are willing to pay big bucks for Sunday Ticket. I don't see why they wouldn't be willing to also pay for ESPN.


To be fair... DirecTV is giving Sunday Ticket away to new subscribers this season... which surely suggests that the limit may have been reached on customers willing to pay for such a package.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> To be fair... DirecTV is giving Sunday Ticket away to new subscribers this season... which surely suggests that the limit may have been reached on customers willing to pay for such a package.


They kind of offer free ST every year to new customers around this time. It's typically worded differently. I believe last year was, "Buy Sunday Ticket and get free Premier package for 5 months.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

SayWhat? said:


> I can get a huge bowl of Tostitos without ESPN.


And I can get better jokes at jokes.com


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

Not a Dish sub so I cannot vote. I do know that if Dish did drop ESPN, they will see themselves losing even more subs. ESPN is one of the most popular channels on cable, any provider that does not carry ESPN will be doomed for failure


----------



## jsk (Dec 27, 2006)

If Charlie decided to drop ESPN and lowered our price by $5, I would be very happy. I don't have it on my favorites list and wouldn't even notice that it was gone, but I would notice the extra $5 in my bank account.


----------



## shadough (Dec 31, 2006)

Interesting question. First up, lets clear up a a discrepency in the ORIGINAL post. Dish never had YES network to drop....has never had it. 

Since I have both, E* & D*, I'd be ok w/ E* dropping ESPN. Plus I can probably get by w/ using ESPN Mobile and ESPN-3 for a while. If it became a permanent thing, I'd hafta upgrade my lone Directv receiver to a DVR I guess.

ps I didnt even notice SNY was gone.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

DodgerKing said:


> Not a Dish sub so I cannot vote. I do know that if Dish did drop ESPN, they will see themselves losing even more subs. ESPN is one of the most popular channels on cable, any provider that does not carry ESPN will be doomed for failure


Interesting thought. What is the most watched channel on cable/sat? My guess would be ESPN (Just the original ESPN).


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

inazsully said:


> Interesting thought. What is the most watched channel on cable/sat? My guess would be ESPN (Just the original ESPN).


ESPN was 3rd overall in 2010.



> There was little change at the top of the basic cable rankings for 2010, with USA, Disney Channel, ESPN, TNT and Fox News Channel once again ranking as the most watched networks. In 18-49, USA, ESPN, TBS and TNT returned as No.1-4, with History rounding out the Top 5.


Source: http://www.deadline.com/2010/12/yea...op-history-breaks-into-top-10-with-big-gains/


----------



## dlt (Feb 21, 2007)

If the sports channels are so expensive, then put them on another tier of channels (400 etc) and let the sports fans pay for them. Just like the movie channels (300) HBO"s etc.


----------



## MattScahum (Oct 27, 2010)

dishrich said:


> The OP really should have added this as a selection:
> 
> *Leave my current prog provider & switch TO DISH (if the price was right)*
> 
> ...


to my knowledge that package exists. its called top 120


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

> There was little change at the top of the basic cable rankings for 2010, with USA, Disney Channel, ESPN, TNT and Fox News Channel once again ranking as the most watched networks.


Watched by me:

USA; Rarely
Disney; Rarely
ESPN; Never
TNT; Sometimes
FN; Never

Really wouldn't miss any of them all that much.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

I don't watch racing as much as I used to and I almsot never watch the MNF game unless it's the Patriots and then it's on WCVB in HD.

If ESPN went away and Dish dropped my package price, I think I could live with that.

My sports programming is delivered pretty much with NESN, MLBN and the Big Three networks.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

SayWhat? said:


> Watched by me:
> 
> USA; Rarely
> Disney; Rarely
> ...


That equals out to solid "Hardly Ever". Everybody has different tastes but "hardly ever" on those top watched channels puts you in a extreme minority. Nothing wrong with that though.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

Time for theme packs like in canada.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

If Dish Network would have to drop the ESPN's out of AT120 the price would not decrease,but as long as I have been with Dish Network I would imagine that Dish Network would add other channels to the package.For the price we have to pay for the ESPNs we may find ourselves with an additional 10 channels that would replace the 3 we would lose in AT120.


----------



## Grandude (Oct 21, 2004)

When I took the poll I selected that I didn't know what I would do but I do know one thing I would do. I would find some way to get ESPN. I really don't think I would want to drop Dish as I have been almost a charter member. It has been observed that people almost always have the money to buy what they want and I guess I fall into that group.

I have a wide range of interests and could never do away with receiving TV via cable/satellite as the choices are so numerous and varied.

Sure, I along with most people, would rather not pay for all the channels I don't watch, and there are a huge number of them, but at this time I don't believe there is another option and I sometimes wonder why people continue to grouse about it. That is the way it is and will likely not change much over time.

Of course none of this will be important after December 2012.


----------



## dishrich (Apr 23, 2002)

MattScahum said:


> to my knowledge that package exists. its called top 120


If you mean for the RSN's, sure - but BOTH ESPN's (1&2) are STILL in it...


----------



## rasheed (Sep 12, 2005)

sigma1914 said:


> Don't you think someone would have a sports free option by now if was a viable option?


Couple of items.

An ESPN-free package in some form or another has been around for awhile on most carriers sometimes it is called Family Pack, sometimes it is called Basic Plus among other names. Because it lacks many other 'basic' channels, it is only popular to a smaller segment.

However, there are a few problems with the ESPN situation (of which the exact details I do not know):

-The ESPN/Disney (family and kids channels) could be in a bundle price that is much more competitive for Dish to manage than separately (effectively, cheaper to subsidize across a large user base than add it a significantly higher price to a higher AT or Sports tier package.
-Dish does have to evaluate the demand of major sports on these networks when RSNs are already removed. I could see ESPN move to the 120+ tier very easily, but I am not sure that is the problem or if there really needs to be a 200+ and 250+ sports tier as well.
-The new C-level executive from Sirius at Dish is not as interested as promoting Dish as a price leader as in previous. So, if ESPN was removed from an AT package, would he be interested in lowering the price? NO. Would adding a bunch of smaller channels to that package be wise? NO, but likely.

Rasheed


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I'm not in favor of crazy price hikes either...

but a lot of people easily forget that the popularity of a channel like ESPN and having it in the basic packages is part of what enables a lot of the non-sports channels to be able to exist.

So... while you might not like paying $5 for ESPN, consider that your $5 for ESPN help that package be viable enough to have enough subscribers so that the channel you do watch can be in that package for $1...

Take ESPN out of that package, and your package price might not go down... it could even go up, if enough people dropped it and your favorite channels then needed to ask for more money.

Cable and satellite packages are a lot like Jenga... be careful when you pull one of those pieces out to not drop the whole tower that was depending on it!


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

Good point


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

The _Post_ article in the original post didn't provide a full picture of the situation.

Dish is the front line for the signal provider industry, and Charlie will be in the spotlight.

The related story from Broadcasting & Cable yesterday led with these paragraphs:


> American Cable Association President Matt Polka Friday slammed ESPN's new 8-year, approximately $15 billion deal to renew Monday Night Football, saying it will push cost of pay-TV "into the stratosphere."
> 
> ACA has long opined about the impact of ESPN's cost on the rising price of cable and satellite. "Evidently, ESPN is pleased to be known as the worldwide leader of hyper-inflationary price hikes. Pardon the interruption, but that's just not cricket," said Polka.
> 
> Separately, Bernstein Research analyst Craig Moffett also talked Friday about the possible impact of a deal whose cost he said was 70% higher than the current ESPN MNF contract. Moffett said that while ESPN and ESPN2 account for almost 20% of the wholesale cost of pay-TV, they account for less than 2.5% of viewership.


From a Deadline New York story on the same subject:


> ESPN and ESPN2 represent about 20% of a typical pay TV provider's wholesale programming costs even though the channels just appeal to 2.5% of the viewers, Bernstein Research analyst Craig Moffett says in a new report. If you throw in other services, including regional channels, then about $12.15 - more than half of the average monthly wholesale programming payments - go for sports. Moffett figures that pay TV subscribers would have to pay an additional 67 cents a month just to cover ESPN's additional new football costs. The price would rise to 78 cents if Dish Network drops the Disney-owned sports channel, something that the satellite company's chairman Charlie Ergen has threatened to do. No wonder some analysts say Disney bit off more than it can chew.


Cable TV channels are the only profit center at the Disney organization that has consistently made a _large_ profit throughout the past decade, subsidizing the losers among 14 theme parks around the world and Disney cruises.

Disney is betting that within many homes the ability of those in their preadolescence years to effectively "lobby" for the Disney Channel, combined with the peculiar appeal of the activities of a particular set of skilled celebrities with star quality - professional athletes, will give them a win.

It may or may not be a good bet. Based on sketchy information, it appears Charlie likes tennis and fishing. If he were to hold out while Disney gradually runs into contract deadlines with the cable companies and DirecTV, it may be a bad bet. But I don't know how strong Charlie's influence will be albeit he and his own a voting majority of Dish.

But let's not forget this which also may influence Dish's position with the Disney folks:


DodgerKing said:


> ENGLEWOOD, Colo., Jan. 3, 2011 - DISH Network L.L.C. today announced that it is ... freezing prices on its primary programming packages through January 2013, becoming the only major satellite or cable company in America to announce a two-year price freeze.


IMHO Dish will not absorb a major cost hit for all of 2012.

I still don't know, though, what's going to be on the table for negotiations. All of the Disney-owned cable channels? Some or all of the Disney-owned ABC broadcast local stations?

And I don't know how far the Disney folks will be able to push if members of Congress find the natives are getting restless about their TV right at election time.


----------



## churdie (May 4, 2003)

i already dowgraded to welcome pkg and watch football on espn3 online for free


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm not in favor of crazy price hikes either...
> 
> but a lot of people easily forget that the popularity of a channel like ESPN and having it in the basic packages is part of what enables a lot of the non-sports channels to be able to exist.
> 
> ...


Well said.

Or... could other popular channels be added that people want? Just as an out of the box thinking possibility, could dish get HBO to put a channel or two in a regular package, not raise the price, and advertise "free" HBO now included? Or call it a "Free Preview" of an HBO channel or channels in the package for a year, etc..... (Or Starz, or whatever etc..) There is precedent for this - Encore is in a regular package. Perhaps some integration with PPV, or Blockbuster, etc also. I think there are some innovative things Dish could do. It might not keep people who are not going to be without ESPN, but it might attract subscribers not otherwise looking to switch to Dish.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

tampa8 said:


> Well said.
> 
> Or... could other popular channels be added that people want? Just as an out of the box thinking possibility, could dish get HBO to put a channel or two in a regular package, not raise the price, and advertise "free" HBO now included? Or call it a "Free Preview" of an HBO channel or channels in the package for a year, etc..... (Or Starz, or whatever etc..) There is precedent for this - Encore is in a regular package. Perhaps some integration with PPV, or Blockbuster, etc also. I think there are some innovative things Dish could do. It might not keep people who are not going to be without ESPN, but it might attract subscribers not otherwise looking to switch to Dish.


That is a possibility... of course, the drawback be then people would point out how much HBO costs and then say "HBO costs more than the other channels in my package and I don't want to pay for HBO because I don't watch it" and we would be back where we started probably.

It's the old people-will-complain-about-something phenomenon... If magic somehow allowed ESPN to come out of a package and the package price did come down... people would find the next most-expensive channel and rail against that one next. That's kind of how people's minds work it seems.

Bundles with other services are a good example.

Say your phone is $35, your internet is $55, and your cable is $60 per month individually BUT you can get a package deal for $125 total if you subscribe to all three.

Cool... you sign up... then after a while wish you weren't paying $125 a month and look to save money... a lot of people seem to conveniently forget that bundle discount and start asking "I'm paying $35 for a phone that I barely use since I have a cellphone, so why can't I drop that and keep the other services for just $90"...

They would try to subtract the full price instead of the pro-rated price due to bundle discounts. And with respect to channels like ESPN... they forget that all of their channels are somewhat discounted as a result of being in a package... so that when you start pulling channels out, it changes the whole dynamic more than they realize OR are willing to recognize.


----------



## Jon W (Jan 27, 2004)

Bye Bye Dish! I'm tired of the customer getting screwed while rates keep going up regardless.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Jon W said:


> Bye Bye Dish! I'm tired of the customer getting screwed while rates keep going up regardless.


Then you really mean bye-bye ESPN, since they are the cause of much of those rate increases.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

"SayWhat?" said:


> Then you really mean bye-bye ESPN, since they are the cause of much of those rate increases.


+1


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Jon W said:


> Bye Bye Dish! I'm tired of the customer getting screwed while rates keep going up regardless.


You must really mean bye-bye to all pay TV... because everybody is seeing rates go up... even Netflix is faced with rate increases and loss of access to some programming.


----------



## samhevener (Feb 23, 2006)

Keep dish and look for a discount on my monthly bill.


----------



## BobaBird (Mar 31, 2002)

Stewart Vernon said:


> If magic somehow allowed ESPN to come out of a package and the package price did come down... people would find the next most-expensive channel and rail against that one next.


That would be the other channel(s) that command 20% of the wholesale cost while attracting 2.5% of the viewers. One of the prevailing complaints is that ESPN has priced itself into premium territory while demanding placement in the entry-level package. IIRC from a table that was posted quite awhile back, most of the general interest channels are well under $.50 while ESPN is over $4. If the disparity weren't so great, I think the complaints would drop closer to the level of children's/news/artsy/reality-invented/reality-documentary/music/rerun channels that don't get watched.

I have to wonder, though, where that 2.5% of viewers figure comes from as it seems quite low for a top 5 channel.


----------



## Grandude (Oct 21, 2004)

BobaBird said:


> I have to wonder, though, where that 2.5% of viewers figure comes from as it seems quite low for a top 5 channel.


Figures lie and liars figure.

I would expect that the number includes all the children, grandchildren and dogs viewing the TV and not just the person paying for the service.


----------



## Matt9876 (Oct 11, 2007)

SayWhat? said:


> Watched by me:
> 
> USA; Rarely
> Disney; Rarely
> ...


+1


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

What would you do if Dish dropped ESPN or made it a separate tier?

Answer: The same thing I'd do if Dishnetwork, DirecTV or Cable dropped it. Nothing beyond finally noticing it wasn't in the guide at some point. It could take months or years before I noticed of course.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

BobaBird said:


> I have to wonder, though, where that 2.5% of viewers figure comes from as it seems quite low for a top 5 channel.


I wondered about that number and wondered what Bernstein Research analyst Craig Moffett really said.

One story referring back to Moffett says "they account for less than 2.5% of viewership" while the other says "appeal to 2.5% of the viewers" which already are two different things IMHO.

My guess is that the percentage reflects "TV on" time. In other words, if the average _metered_ TV is on 6 hours a day seven days a week all year, 1.2 hours a week it would be tuned to an ESPN channel.

That's a very high number for a special interest cable channel group. Obviously during NFL season the numbers are higher than other times of the year.

While I think the Disney people are nuts committing ESPN to an 8-year, $15 billion deal to renew Monday Night Football, I recognize that there are some streaming and other perks associated with it.

I just don't think that they are going to be able to convince Charlie, but who knows what kind of arrangement could be made.


----------



## tommiet (Dec 29, 2005)

joshjr said:


> Are you okay with losing ESPN and still paying the same price?


No more big price increases from ESPN......

I would "party all night!"


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

Not a Dish customer, but I would consider subscribing, on principle, and leaving DTV. No excuse for the transfer subsidy from non-sports fans to the sports fanatic. Two sporting events I enjoy: (i) Stanford Cardinal football (Beal Cal!!!), and (ii) Grand Slam tennis tournaments. But on principle, I can't support the egregious terms that Disney has been able to extract from working class families.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

tommiet said:


> No more big price increases from ESPN......
> 
> I would "party all night!"


You do know that lots of other companies are and have been raising their rates too whenever the negotiation time comes around...


----------



## Chris Walker (May 19, 2004)

Bye Dish. Although I can't imagine Dish ever being dumb enough to do something like that. You can't compete as a television service without ESPN.


----------



## ramman3558 (Sep 13, 2011)

Don't blame dish for wanting to drop ESPN for price gouging. Blame it on the college and Pro sport teams. It's all about greed. They have the attitude if you want to watch us play you will pay for it. Its all about money anymore instead of just playing a sport. That's why these college are jumping conferences.:mad


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

See, all this talk about Dish losing ESPN has caused Dish to shut down. Just the thought of losing ESPN can be deadly.


----------



## festivus (Nov 10, 2008)

I normally side with the providers over the networks. But I need my college football. I would drop Dish immediately.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I'll be honest here...

I was out shopping and came home about 9:00pm and saw no ESPN2HD feed and thought, "Crap... there goes ESPN!"...

Then I realized a LOT of channels were dead... and saw the thread that the 129 SAT had major issues...

But for a moment there... I thought of this thread!


----------



## festivus (Nov 10, 2008)

ramman3558 said:


> Don't blame dish for wanting to drop ESPN for price gouging. Blame it on the college and Pro sport teams. It's all about greed. They have the attitude if you want to watch us play you will pay for it. Its all about money anymore instead of just playing a sport. That's why these college are jumping conferences.:mad


You are correct. A monster has been created. It's also why a nationally televised college game now takes about 3 1/2 hours minimum to finish. Way too many TV timeouts in order to generate revenue to pay for the expensive TV contracts. It does make someone think about just not caring about it any longer. But until I get to that point, and to bring the thread back on topic, I need ESPN and would call DirecTV pretty quickly. And I hate DirecTV and their little NFL Sunday ticket monopoly.


----------



## tommiet (Dec 29, 2005)

Stewart Vernon said:


> You do know that lots of other companies are and have been raising their rates too whenever the negotiation time comes around...


But most (if not all) channels with a high monthly cost are premium channels today. If HBO raises their prices, you have a choice to cancel it. When ESPN and FOX Sports raise their prices, I do not have a choice.

I would guess that ESPN is the most expensive non-premium billed channel that Dish has today.

What if HBO was forced on everyone and you didn't even watch it? Many would be pissed... Well, many non-sports loving customers are getting the shaft and we have to support others premium programming choices. As much as sports programming cost, it really is a premium service. Time to treat it that way.

Just think everyone should have a choice. If you want 200 sports channels and are willing to pay for it, that's great! But I should not have to subsidize others viewing habits, right? When a service gets over "X" cost per month, it should be optional.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

tommiet said:


> But most (if not all) channels with a high monthly cost are premium channels today. If HBO raises their prices, you have a choice to cancel it. When ESPN and FOX Sports raise their prices, I do not have a choice.
> 
> I would guess that ESPN is the most expensive non-premium billed channel that Dish has today.
> 
> ...


It seems to me that people that watch the sports channels are subsidizing the channels that you watch more than you are them. If not for the high revenues generated by the ESPN channels many of the lesser watched channels would fall by the wayside.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

inazsully said:


> It seems to me that people that watch the sports channels are subsidizing the channels that you watch more than you are them. If not for the high revenues generated by the ESPN channels many of the lesser watched channels would fall by the wayside.


Exactly... as I pointed out earlier, things are more connected than most are able (or willing) to recognize.

I don't always want a Quarter Pounder at McDonalds... but if they dropped that burger, I would probably go less for the other things.

Pulling ESPN and making it standalone would likely result in ESPN charging more a la carte but probably leveling out and finding enough audience to keep on churning.

But... now that it is a la carte... how many of those ESPN fans will drop the other packages that have channels they don't watch anymore?

Enough people drop them... then those other non-sport channels either have to raise rates or go away.

It is never as simple as some want it to be.


----------



## pfred (Feb 8, 2009)

I wonder why Dish doesn't seem to solicit opinions on these matters from their customers. Aren't they curious if we would rather have, say Disney, or Animal Planet?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

pfred said:


> I wonder why Dish doesn't seem to solicit opinions on these matters from their customers. Aren't they curious if we would rather have, say Disney, or Animal Planet?


Don't be so sure that they don't. I'm sure Dish knows about posts on forums like this, collects their twitter/facebook complaints, and monitors the CSR calls.

There may be marketing surveys too that we are unaware of... and also they monitor their subscribers habits for adding/dropping programming when they make changes.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

tommiet said:


> But most (if not all) channels with a high monthly cost are premium channels today. If HBO raises their prices, you have a choice to cancel it. When ESPN and FOX Sports raise their prices, I do not have a choice.
> 
> I would guess that ESPN is the most expensive non-premium billed channel that Dish has today.
> 
> ...


I have to wonder about the cost per channel. Say there are 8 Starz channels costing x wholesale to D* or E*, then the cost per channel would be 1/8 x. 3 ESPN channels costs $4+ divided by 3 could be higher.

It seems to me that the Wholesale cost per channel could be higher for ESPN than the premiums.


----------



## tommiet (Dec 29, 2005)

inazsully said:


> It seems to me that people that watch the sports channels are subsidizing the channels that you watch more than you are them. If not for the high revenues generated by the ESPN channels many of the lesser watched channels would fall by the wayside.


Do you think that ESPN sends HBO a check each month? :lol:

No more beer for you!


----------



## tommiet (Dec 29, 2005)

TBoneit said:


> I have to wonder about the cost per channel. Say there are 8 Starz channels costing x wholesale to D* or E*, then the cost per channel would be 1/8 x. 3 ESPN channels costs $4+ divided by 3 could be higher.
> 
> It seems to me that the Wholesale cost per channel could be higher for ESPN than the premiums.


I had found a site that listed 2009 cost of each channel for Dish and I'l try to find it again... But the cost for just ESPN and Fox Sports was around $9.00 a month. That does not include last years price increase and other sports channels.

I'll see if I can find that list again........ Out of date, but does list the cost per customer, per channel.


----------



## tommiet (Dec 29, 2005)

If you no longer want to subsidize sports programming anymore, sent an email to [email protected] and let them know. I'm not asking to dump sports programming, just don't want to pay for a premium service I do not use.

I can tell you that I did this last year and was *VERY* happy with the reply! 
No comment on what they did for me.

Guess I need to change my name and hide from the sport Gestapo.

Please don't hate me because I'm not a sports fan. I also do not like brussel sprouts.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Everybody should write or call and express their opinions and wants... that is what Dish is there for... to take customer input and frame their service. IF we don't speak, they don't know.

BUT

Be careful what you wish for.

IF you succeed in getting ESPN out of the basic tier... then I want all the Lifetime/Hallmark channels out too because I never watch those. Put them in a package so I don't pay for those either. Also, no offense to any Spanish-speaking persons here... but my limited memory of high school Spanish means I can't enjoy Telemundo and Univision even if I might like to... so I think those shouldn't be in the basic tiers either.

There are other groups too... and then we are on the road to a la carte, which will mean higher prices for all... and then I don't get the channels I want and you don't get the channels you want... and ESPN will survive because they have contracts and are surviving as a premium by then.

Then you'll wish you had let the sleeping dog... you know.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Stewart Vernon said:


> then I want all the Lifetime/Hallmark channels out too because I never watch those. Put them in a package so I don't pay for those either.


Those are general entertainment viewed by a wide cross section.



> Also, no offense to any Spanish-speaking persons here... but my limited memory of high school Spanish means I can't enjoy Telemundo and Univision even if I might like to... so I think those shouldn't be in the basic tiers either.


I would put all foreign language programming in separate packages.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

SayWhat? said:


> Those are general entertainment viewed by a wide cross section.
> 
> ...


They don't get near as many viewers as ESPN. You all can hate sports all you want, but the fact remains ESPN one of the highest rated channels with ratings hundreds of cable channels wish they had.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

SayWhat? said:


> I would put all foreign language programming in separate packages.


Soon, you'll probably be paying at least 1 dollar a month for Univision.

Last fall, Fox Broadcasting inked a deal with Cablevision for 55 cents a sub, going up to 1 dollar a sub by year 5. So, that's the benchmark for OTA broadcast stations.

Thing is, Univision sometimes draws more 18-34 viewers than Fox Broadcast. And, given the high birth rate of the Hispanic population, in five years, Univision will be regularly attracting more 18-34 viewers than Fox Broadcasting.

UVN will demand and receive, I predict, a 20% premium to Fox. So, in five years, all DirecTv subs will be paying 1.20 per month for Univision (which, like Fox Broadcast, is OTA).

Who do I blame?

ESPN. Had it not been for ESPN extracting 5 dollars a month, the OTA broadcasters would probably not have even tried to get paid for carriage.

(Of course, in five years, every DTV sub will probably be paying ESPN 8 dollars a month, given the deal ESPN just inked with the NFL, assuming a 10% CAGR through year 5)


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

SayWhat? said:


> Those are general entertainment viewed by a wide cross section..


Maybe... but I never watch the Lifetime/Hallmark channels... and the reason for moving ESPN wasn't given as because it wasn't watched but because some people didn't watch and didn't want to pay for channels they don't watch.

"Let people who want ESPN pay for it as a premium" is what people say... so, why not the same for the channels others like that I don't?

But I've already stated I don't like where a la carte would lead... so I really don't like that model.

I would like a little better grouping in the tiers sometimes... but I've managed to adapt.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Stewart Vernon said:


> and the reason for moving ESPN wasn't given as because it wasn't watched but because some people didn't watch and didn't want to pay for channels they don't watch.
> 
> "Let people who want ESPN pay for it as a premium" is what people say...


My point was that sports is a specialty/niche group. There are several sports channels in AT250 that I would move to a separate tier and offer "AT250 General" and "AT250 with Sports".


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

SayWhat? said:


> My point was that sports is a specialty/niche group. There are several sports channels in AT250 that I would move to a separate tier and offer "AT250 General" and "AT250 with Sports".


Yeah... but Lifetime/Hallmark are a niche/specialty group too.

And while I like Syfy, I recognize that Science-fiction programming is a niche as well.

TruTV is part of the "reality TV" niche...

There are lots of niches represented in the various tiers.

I see no reason to just single out sports is all I'm saying.


----------



## retiredTech (Oct 27, 2003)

It's simple. Forget what the content is, sports or whatever.
If a channel is 4-10 times the the cost of any other channel in the tier,
then that channel should never be in the bottom tier.
ESPN now costs what premium channels do.
I could care less whether it's sports channel or any other kind of channel.
ANY CHANNEL that is SO over priced should not be in the 120 package.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

retiredTech said:


> It's simple. Forget what the content is, sports or whatever.
> If a channel is 4-10 times the the cost of any other channel in the tier,
> then that channel should never be in the bottom tier.
> ESPN now costs what premium channels do.
> ...


That's it!,it really does not matter what type of channel it is.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

Obviously it is not over priced. The price is based on demand and if it wasn't worth the $$$ it would be gone.


----------



## tommiet (Dec 29, 2005)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Everybody should write or call and express their opinions and wants... that is what Dish is there for... to take customer input and frame their service. IF we don't speak, they don't know.
> 
> BUT
> 
> ...


..... I'll guess most sports fans would not care for moving ESPN to a premium tier........

The channels your asking to be moved don't cost each customer $10.00+ a month. As I said, I feel ANY channel that cost more than then a few bucks a month should be optional. Some channels cost less than .20 per month.


----------



## tommiet (Dec 29, 2005)

Jhon69 said:


> That's it!,it really does not matter what type of channel it is.


This is the kind of information that DISH needs to hear from its customers!


----------



## tommiet (Dec 29, 2005)

Originally Posted by* retiredTech* 
It's simple. Forget what the content is, sports or whatever.
If a channel is 4-10 times the the cost of any other channel in the tier,
then that channel should never be in the bottom tier.
ESPN now costs what premium channels do.
I could care less whether it's sports channel or any other kind of channel.
ANY CHANNEL that is SO over priced should not be in the 120 package.

*This is the kind of information that customers need to tell DISH! If your happy with the cost of all channels, do nothing. If not send an email to the [email protected]
*


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

tommiet said:


> This is the kind of information that DISH needs to hear from its customers!


Email sent.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

mdavej said:


> ESPN has chosen to become a premium provider but still have full access to a basic cable audience.


Does this mean that they don't need to run ads anymore?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

tommiet said:


> I feel ANY channel that cost more than then a few bucks a month should be optional. Some channels cost less than .20 per month.


Yeah... except those channels are only able to sell for 20 cents per channel because so many customers subscribe to the package they are in... IF you pull out the more popular channels (like ESPN) and make them premiums... then lower subscribers in those tiers means those channels have to raise their prices too OR fade away.

Think if it like this...

IF I could stand at the gate in front of the State fair in NC and get $1 from each person that goes through the gate... I could get $70,000-$100,000 by taking that dollar if everyone was willing.

BUT... IF my target it $100,000... and the main event cancels due to illness so only half as many people show up to the fair... then I have to start collecting $2 per person to make my numbers.

Pull some of these "expensive" channels out of the bundle and the channels left over might be in that boat... needing to collect more from the remaining customers.

It's fun to gripe about ESPN being $5 or whatever... but I guarantee you those 20-cent-per-channel channels absolutely would charge you every penny they thought they could get from you... hence all the channels that keep trying to raise their rates every year too. They're just behind ESPN on the pricing curve... but trust me, they would love to be collecting $5 from you too.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Yeah... except those channels are only able to sell for 20 cents per channel because so many customers subscribe to the package they are in... IF you pull out the more popular channels (like ESPN) and make them premiums... then lower subscribers in those tiers means those channels have to raise their prices too OR fade away.
> 
> Think if it like this...
> 
> ...


Great explanation, Mr Vernon. Here's an old one I used before:



> People who want a la carte use that chart to show how cheap channels should cost us. They'll say, "See...BBCA should only cost us $0.12." They fail to realize that a la carte wouldn't make a lot of stations any money. At $0.12/sub, Directv pays about $2.1 million & overall BBCA gets about $8.2 million from all providers. BBCA highest rated show ever had 1.7 million viewers & that's over all providers. So, if only 1.7 million will watch BBCA's highest show, then it's safe to assume 2 million will add it al a carte...and that's being generous. At $0.12/sub for 2 million people, that earns BBCA a whopping $240,000 from all providers combined. Bye-bye BBCA! For BBCA to earn the $8.2 million they get now, the price for little ol' BBCA would be about $4.10 per month. Now, imagine how much actual popular stations would cost...


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

sigma1914 said:


> Great explanation, Mr Vernon. Here's an old one I used before:


Yeah, I've seen and liked your example before too...

I am sad, though, that I saw when you quoted my post that I had accidentally used "their" when I meant "they're"... and I can't excuse myself from that!

So I fixed my original post, but am leaving your quote untouched because I deserve the shame that comes from making that mistake when I have picked at others for doing it!


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Yeah... except those channels are only able to sell for 20 cents per channel because so many customers subscribe to the package they are in... IF you pull out the more popular channels (like ESPN) and make them premiums... then lower subscribers in those tiers means those channels have to raise their prices too OR fade away.


I don't understand what you're saying. I have premiums but I still subscribe to a package.

The entire ESPN lineup is included in the AT120 package and up. You can't get away from it and have any significant number of cable channels in your lineup. You're in the AT package you're in not because of ESPN but because of something else.

If the ESPN group were made a premium package, presumably people would still be in the AT package they're in for the reason they chose it in the first place.

I know there a some, but I don't see many people subscribing to HBO, Showtime, Starz, Cinemax, and/or Platinum who don't subscribe to an AT package. And I don't believe if ESPN were put into a premium we'd see measurable numbers dropping their AT package or AT package level.

Anyway, from last night's Evening Bridge:


> This morning's Morning BRIDGE opinion piece on rumors that DISH might drop ESPN has generated yet another avalanche of mail ... again heavily favoring the idea of someone, somewhere putting the brakes on the high costs of mandatory sports channels. Among the more interesting pieces we received was a reminder of a research flash sent from Bernstein Research's Craig Moffett last Friday. Moffett doesn't take sides but notes, "ESPN and ESPN 2 alone account for almost 20% of the wholesale cost of the average Pay TV subscription." Indeed, he puts ESPN's monthly affiliate fee at ~$5.36/month, with the total monthly programming cost averaging around $28/month at TWC and Comcast over the past year. Yikes.


I do realize that the cable companies do have what is essentially a cheap "lifeline" package that, given the nature of cable TV vs satellite, a greater percentage of customers use which results in that $28 "average."

But that "avalanche of mail...heavily favoring the idea of someone, somewhere putting the brakes on the high costs of mandatory sports channels" is not a surprise.

Again, I don't know how many, if any, Disney O&O ABC affiliates will be included in the negotiations which would change the dynamics of the fight.

It's tough for any cable or satellite company to not offer one of the "big 4" broadcast networks in all the major markets - too many viewers just want to see their "Dancing with the Stars" and don't care if ultimately they end up in bankruptcy court because they live their lives blindly doing stuff like subsidizing Disney Cruises.

On the other hand, ABC came out of last season in ratings trouble. They can only go so long without Dish viewers in their ratings in the major markets.

I hope Charlie can push back successfully even if it means the complete loss of ESPN and Disney cable channels for a period to time. And if ABC affiliates are involved, I assume at some point members of Congress running for office might start to worry about their constituents v Disney.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

phrelin said:


> I do realize that the cable companies do have what is essentially a cheap "lifeline" package that, given the nature of cable TV vs satellite, a greater percentage of customers use which results in that $28 "average."


There is no way in hell that the ARPU for cable television is $28. No how, no way.

Looking at the Time Warner numbers, their ARPU for video is $73.46.

I don't think Comcast splits out the video numbers but their ARPU for video customers is $136.


----------



## retiredTech (Oct 27, 2003)

My email asking for ESPN or any other "extremely over priced" channels to be removed from AT120 has been sent.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

phrelin said:


> I don't understand what you're saying. I have premiums but I still subscribe to a package.
> 
> The entire ESPN lineup is included in the AT120 package and up. You can't get away from it and have any significant number of cable channels in your lineup. You're in the AT package you're in not because of ESPN but because of something else.
> 
> If the ESPN group were made a premium package, presumably people would still be in the AT package they're in for the reason they chose it in the first place.


My statement there was part of an overall theme... If the argument to pull ESPN out is because it is too expensive... then once you do that some sports-only people will drop the non-sports package. It works both ways. There are lots of sports-junkies that would happily drop the basic tier if they could get ESPN and other sports without having to take the non-sports.

Then... you would have a package that either costs more for less (your rates probably won't go down from Dish) OR price-per channel on existing channels starts creeping up for no-sport channels... and with less subscribers due to those who do drop for sport-only packages... some channels will want to raise rates to cover that difference in revenue.

Before long you have the next "ESPN" that is a "niche channel" that costs more than others in the package.

Also, it seems unlikely that ABC/Disney would move ESPNs to a premium package without something changing for their other ABC/Disney-owned non-sport channels... so either rates go up on those and they stay in the tiers OR they too go premium at a higher cost.


----------



## pfred (Feb 8, 2009)

phrelin said:


> Anyway, from last night's Evening Bridge: I do realize that the cable companies do have what is essentially a cheap "lifeline" package that, given the nature of cable TV vs satellite, a greater percentage of customers use which results in that $28 "average.".


From the  Morning Bridge: • "It's time to put an end to the ESPN/NFL cartel bleeding American consumers."

Cartel? Hmmm.

I got a kick out of that.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

pfred said:


> From the  Morning Bridge: • "It's time to put an end to the ESPN/NFL cartel bleeding American consumers."
> 
> Cartel? Hmmm.
> 
> I got a kick out of that.


Yeah... if that is a cartel... then what about Hollywood?


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

From Wikipedia:


> A *cartel* is a formal (explicit) agreement among competing firms. It is a formal organization of producers and manufacturers that agree to fix prices, marketing, and production. Cartels usually occur in an oligopolistic industry, where there is a small number of sellers and usually involve homogeneous products. Cartel members may agree on such matters as price fixing, total industry output, market shares, allocation of customers, allocation of territories, bid rigging, establishment of common sales agencies, and the division of profits or combination of these. The aim of such collusion (also called the cartel agreement) is to increase individual members' profits by reducing competition.
> 
> One can distinguish private cartels from public cartels. In the *public cartel* a government is involved to enforce the cartel agreement, and the government's sovereignty shields such cartels from legal actions. Inversely, private cartels are subject to legal liability under the antitrust laws now found in nearly every nation of the world.


American professional football and baseball are public cartels not only shielded from antitrust laws but given other special laws by Congress. Additionally they are given special treatment by many state and local governments. This all is in addition to the copyright protections afforded most sources of entertainment.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

A few days ago, I said that ESPN would raise its carriage fees by 10% a year, to get to 8 dollars a month in five years.

I may have been too conservative.

ESPN is going to demand 7 dollars a month next year. In five years, it could be as high as 9.00 a month.

And if that's the case, I can see Univision demanding not 1.20 a month as I had said earlier, but at least 1.75.

----------------------------
According to analysts, cable subscribers will be forced to fork over $2 more a month in 2012 for ESPN sports channel (which promises up to 500 more hours in additional pro football coverage), thanks to its recently signed 8-year, $15.2 billion deal with the NFL.

Today, ESPN charges cable operators $4.89 a subscriber. It wants to increase that to $7, and everyone expects that extra $2 will be passed along to customers.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/audible_groans_agEjp5JOGPSLOVhRkFZL3I#ixzz1YKOnfLf0
----------------------------


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

phrelin said:


> From Wikipedia: American professional football and baseball are public cartels not only shielded from antitrust laws but given other special laws by Congress. Additionally they are given special treatment by many state and local governments. This all is in addition to the copyright protections afforded most sources of entertainment.


I don't know if I would take up the argument that either the NFL or MLB are "cartels"... but the previous quote that some (myself included) were reacting to was talking about an ESPN/NFL cartel... and I would argue that is not true.

Even if the NFL is a cartel (and I'm not sure how I feel there)... ESPN/NFL is not a cartel. The NFL is also on CBS, NBC, FOX, and the NFL Network... For ESPN/NFL to be a cartel then all those other networks would have to drop away OR join the cartel.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Whatever you call it, hopefully Chuckie and Company will "Just Say No!"


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I don't know if I would take up the argument that either the NFL or MLB are "cartels"... but the previous quote that some (myself included) were reacting to was talking about an ESPN/NFL cartel... and I would argue that is not true.
> 
> Even if the NFL is a cartel (and I'm not sure how I feel there)... ESPN/NFL is not a cartel. The NFL is also on CBS, NBC, FOX, and the NFL Network... For ESPN/NFL to be a cartel then all those other networks would have to drop away OR join the cartel.


IMHO the "grower/manufacturer" - the NFL - has a relationship with addicted users - the fans. It doesn't matter who is the user's dealer for a particular fix.

The NFL determines how much product is on the market and offers it to the "distributors" (both cable and broadcast channels) who bid against each other. They the "distributors" attempt to pass any price increase on to the street dealers (cable and satellite companies). The "dealers" are raising the street price.

Now, I don't care about any of this until the "distributors", fearful that the addict base doesn't have enough money to support their costs, tell the "street dealers" to mug me - a non-user - as I pass by.

Yeah, to carry a silly analogy too far, there are theoretical competing drugs on the street. There's "House" on Monday night running against ESPN Monday Night Football. And apparently its "grower/manufacturer" Rupert Murdoch is already killing distributors (Fox affiliates) that wouldn't put up enough money and extort dealers (cable and satellite companies).

But in my mind the last real attempt at competition with the NFL was the USFL. That ended with the USFL v. NFL lawsuit. Though even the jury in that case acknowledged that the NFL was an illegal monopoly (a second such court finding), we've never seen a finger lifted in the offices of the Department of Justice to bring an anti-trust action.

Even in Columbia, now-dead prosecutors at least tried against their Cartel.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

phrelin said:


> Even in Columbia, now-dead prosecutors at least tried against their Cartel.


In this case it will be even harder with so many lawyers, judges and congress critters being active, paid members of the cartel.

The Government can't break a monopoly when it is an active and willing participant in that monopoly and is involved in defending it daily.


----------



## albert71292 (Aug 19, 2005)

I'm not a sports fan, wouldn't even notice ESPN was missing.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

albert71292 said:


> I'm not a sports fan, wouldn't even notice ESPN was missing.


Of course you wouldn't. The true question is, if you were a sports fan, a serious sports fan, what would you do if Dish dropped ESPN? What if you were a parent in a family of 4 and you were the only sports fan and everybody else loved the extra HD channels that only Dish provides? I should ask my wife how she would feel if I dumped Dish and switched to "D". If everybody did that we could have some very interesting conclusions.


----------



## catnapped (Dec 15, 2007)

Celebrate!


----------



## dishman1999 (Sep 26, 2011)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> A few days ago, I said that ESPN would raise its carriage fees by 10% a year, to get to 8 dollars a month in five years.
> 
> I may have been too conservative.
> 
> ...


Holy Cow I guess Bye Bye ESPN I'm going to cry now no College Football Grrrr!!!!


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

inazsully said:


> The true question is, if you were a sports fan, a serious sports fan, what would you do if Dish dropped ESPN?


There are no such qualifications to this poll.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

inazsully said:


> Of course you wouldn't. The true question is, if you were a sports fan, a serious sports fan, what would you do if Dish dropped ESPN? What if you were a parent in a family of 4 and you were the only sports fan and everybody else loved the extra HD channels that only Dish provides? I should ask my wife how she would feel if I dumped Dish and switched to "D". If everybody did that we could have some very interesting conclusions.


If you are in a family of 4 with significant financial resources, you subscribe to DirecTV and either keep Dish or get a cable service that has the channels the rest of your family likes. And you "tut-tut, too bad" to the riff-raff that can't afford to keep paying, and paying, and paying.

Or you get really, really angry at professional (and more and more college) sports and the Disney Corporation and start writing your representative in Congress making it abundantly clear that no matter how much money he/she gets from corporations in his/her various and sundry campaign PACs etc., you and your friends who are real people are not going to vote for him/her until these corporations are subjected to severe anti-trust actions. And you keep Dish and back Dish's position just as I will if my local ABC station disappears because of Disney's greed.

It's not a great choice, but it's the one we have.:shrug:


----------



## nomadicallens (Oct 5, 2011)

With the internet, I seldom watch ESPN anymore. If I want to watch highlighs, or get a quick score I go to my computer or my phone. I might miss a few Monday Night Football games, but I'd live.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

When does the current contract run through?


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

Fox News Channel wants the "ESPN Treatment", aka "The Don Draper Treatment" as far as PayTv subscribers are concerned.

--------------

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/b...nity-at-the-top-after-15-years.html?src=busln

Fox's popularity - it's the No. 4 cable channel in prime time this year, according to the Nielsen Company - has allowed it to gradually raise its advertising prices and its carriage fees and become one of the News Corporation's biggest profit centers. The company will soon be going back to distributors to renew its carriage deals, most likely for far more than the roughly $1 per subscriber that the channel earns now. Fox had suggested it should be in the same league as ESPN, which costs about $4 per subscriber. Distributors know that some subscribers feel they can't live without hosts like Mr. Hannity and his all-important lead-in, Bill O'Reilly.

--------------


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Fox News Channel wants the "ESPN Treatment", aka "The Don Draper Treatment" as far as PayTv subscribers are concerned.
> 
> --------------
> 
> ...


I could see that coming a mile away what with the Fox broadcast network's declining ratings. News Corp has to make it up somewhere. But there's a problem with their argument - Monday Night Football pulls in numbers in the 15-25 million viewer range. FNC prime time shows are lucky to get 3 million. Heck, Saturday morning's "Spongebob" gets 4 million.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

tommiet said:


> Originally Posted by* retiredTech*
> It's simple. Forget what the content is, sports or whatever.
> If a channel is 4-10 times the the cost of any other channel in the tier,
> then that channel should never be in the bottom tier.
> ...


I just posted on Facebook to put Disney in a tier by itself, like it was in the 90's.


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2011)

without ESPN, I won't be able to watch many MLB baseball games
and college cheerleading competitions. 

however, there's still TBS and FOX which carry some MLB games....

I'll press the panic button when ESPN, TBS and FOX are all gone 
from DishNetwork.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

I think I'd miss Sports Center the most. The best way to get college football scores as they scroll across the bottom of the screen and NFL scores on Sunday. First Take during the week is a must.


----------



## koralis (Aug 10, 2005)

joshjr said:


> If that was the only factor that would be one thing. How is ESPN supposed to gauge it? One day they have 12 million subs at $4 a pop and the next day they have 6 million at $4 a pop.


Then maybe they should stop making megadeals and constantly increasing their fees.



> Sports channels would not be the only ones to go up. Some people would only want the sports to and drop the other channels so in the end all channels and packages would lose subs and money just to satisfy who exactly? I'm not really sure who comes out ahead here in this scenario.


By your arguement ESPN could go to $20 a head and we should all still shrug because of economies of scale.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

albert71292 said:


> I'm not a sports fan, wouldn't even notice ESPN was missing.


Oh you would notice. If ESPN was missing so would a large percentage on the channels now available. What would happen if ESPN were charged as a stand alone channel? The number of subs would decrease slightly and the cost to those subs would increase slightly. But a substantial number of channels now bundled with ESPN would disappear. Because if they were no longer piggy backed with ESPN no network could afford to carry them. They would become dead weight. Beyond expendable.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

inazsully said:


> Oh you would notice. If ESPN was missing so would a large percentage on the channels now available. What would happen if ESPN were charged as a stand alone channel? The number of subs would decrease slightly and the cost to those subs would increase slightly. But a substantial number of channels now bundled with ESPN would disappear. Because if they were no longer piggy backed with ESPN no network could afford to carry them. They would become dead weight. Beyond expendable.


What channels might you be referring too?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

inazsully said:


> But a substantial number of channels now bundled with ESPN would disappear.


The only channels bundled with ESPN are other ESPN channels. ABC Family and Disney are separate issues.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

Every package that includes ESPN I consider bundled with ESPN. If you prefer a word other than "bundled" fine. The point remains valid. If ESPN (including all ESPN channels) was not included in any package you would see subs shying away from the 200 and up packages. A premium charge (say $12) for ESPN in all packages would make the 120+ very popular.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

inazsully said:


> Every package that includes ESPN I consider bundled with ESPN.


You're definition is unconventional at best. What you're talking about is better described by the term "packaging".

Bundling in the classic sense happens at the acquisition level where the carrier can't get one channel without also getting other channels that aren't otherwise interesting enough to stand alone in the marketplace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_bundling


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

As I clearly stated, which you chose to omit when quoting my post, "bundled" may not be the best word to make my point. So you choose to attack my choice of words and ignore the point. Let me phrase the POINT differently. ESPN is the engine that drives every package offered by Dish, DirecTV, Cox, Comcast, and every other cable company. Remove ESPN from any package and you would see channels drop by the wayside.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

inazsully said:


> ESPN is the engine that drives every package offered by Dish, DirecTV, Cox, Comcast, and every other cable company.


Wrong.

Worded differently; ESPN is the culprit that bloats the price of every package offered by Dish, DirecTV, Cox, Comcast, and every other cable company.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

SayWhat? said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Worded differently; ESPN is the culprit that bloats the price of every package offered by Dish, DirecTV, Cox, Comcast, and every other cable company.


In a way you are correct but in reality if ESPN was not part of a given package, some of the more obscure channels could not afford to exist. ESPN's presence actually subsidizes them.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

inazsully said:


> In a way you are correct but in reality if ESPN was not part of a given package, some of the more obscure channels could not afford to exist. ESPN's presence actually subsidizes them.


ESPN's bundling benefits only ESPN's interests via the idea that they can be averaging nearly one channel of commercial advertising 24 hours a day. It doesn't require nor promote the carriage of CNN or History that inhabit most all packages as well.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

harsh said:


> ESPN's bundling benefits only ESPN's interests via the idea that they can be averaging nearly one channel of commercial advertising 24 hours a day. It doesn't require nor promote the carriage of CNN or History that inhabit most all packages as well.


ESPN's bundling benefits not only ESPN's interests but also Dish Networks interests. Any individual package losing CNN or History Channel would barely create a ripple of discord compared to the torrent of viewers discarding a package that loses ESPN. The high profits generated by ESPN's 24 hour a day advertising allows any provider, including Dish, to accept lower advertising profits from less watched channels like CNN and History Channel. If ESPN's profits were taken away from said package the lesser profitable channels would be dropped.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

inazsully said:


> ESPN's bundling benefits not only ESPN's interests but also Dish Networks interests. Any individual package losing CNN or History Channel would barely create a ripple of discord compared to the torrent of viewers discarding a package that loses ESPN. The high profits generated by ESPN's 24 hour a day advertising allows any provider, including Dish, to accept lower advertising profits from less watched channels like CNN and History Channel. If ESPN's profits were taken away from said package the lesser profitable channels would be dropped.


What advertising profits does Dish get from cable channels?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

phrelin said:


> What advertising profits does Dish get from cable channels?


There are spots in all the channels where Dish can inject ads that they sell instead of running national ones. I'm sure you've seen them, even if you don't always notice them or know that they are inserted by Dish rather than the national channel feed.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

Cable systems also insert commercials into programming from time to time.


----------

