# DirecTV Making All Subcribers Pay For NFL ST - Dish Claims



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

Dish has been running a full page "Dish Network Why We Cost Less" ad in the Dallas Morning News and other newspapers across the country. They talk about the 1 billion D* paid for NFL ST rights. Then allude to the fact that that maybe that's why DirecTV customers pay an average of 15% more then the average Dish customer pays. I guess qualifying it with "maybe" allows them to get away with saying this in the ad.

Link to Dish Ad


----------



## redram38 (Dec 7, 2005)

You can bet they wish they had the rights to the NFLST. It is what keeps Directv on top. If Dish had NFLST, you would probl be reading the same thing coming from Directv.


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

That is just speculation on dishes part and they don't know it any more than the people on these forums that claim the same thing. Personally I looked at both services and my initial startup costs and cost per month where going to be very close on both services. The only package that ever seemed significantly cheaper was the total hd packs and they have raised those prices and stopped adding new HD channels to them so they aren't nearly as appealing now.

Overall DirecTV doesn't seem to want the people who are looking for the cheapest price anyway. They have poor retention rates since they leave for the next cheap deal as soon as they can. I would guess the average cost for directv is higher because of higher packages and more additional features purchased not because the comparable packages are that much more expensive.


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

evan_s said:


> That is just speculation on dishes part and they don't know it any more than the people on these forums that claim the same thing. Personally I looked at both services and my initial startup costs and cost per month where going to be very close on both services.
> 
> I would guess the average cost for directv is higher because of higher packages and more additional features purchased not because the comparable packages are that much more expensive.


I did a comparison before choosing D* and the pricing was very similar. So I tried the link that was in the ad and found the comparisons interesting. Also, they do have a nice side-by-side listing of SD channel listings: Link to D* vs E* comparison


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

LOL. So that's why my package is $5 more. Dish is desperate.


----------



## oldavman (Nov 2, 2003)

NFL Sunday Ticket is definitely the "crown jewel" of DirecTV. Dish Network lags far behind Directv in subscribers and they are desperate.


----------



## renbutler (Oct 17, 2008)

Sunday Ticket is the only reason why I don't seriously consider switching to Dish or U-Verse (but not cable in a million years).


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

Sports is D*'s niche, and that's fine, but I certainly don't like subsidizing NFLST if E*'s claims are true. They probably are. The math is pretty simple. If the rights cost more than what they're getting from ST subs, then yes, everyone is subsidizing it. The only reason I chose D* over E* to begin with was D* had more HD. I've been a happy subscriber for years, but now that they've turned their back on HD, their service doesn't meet my requirements anymore, so I'm actively shopping around. I'm probably not the kind of customer they want anyway.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

mdavej said:


> I've been a happy subscriber for years, but now that they've turned their back on HD, their service doesn't meet my requirements anymore, so I'm actively shopping around.


I don't think it is fair to say that they have "turned their backs" on HD, but they're certainly catching their breath.


----------



## Msguy (May 23, 2003)

Not only does DirecTv have NFL Sunday Ticket, DirecTv is the only television service provider who has Baseball. Dish Network does not have baseball. DirecTv has both baseball and football. I'm not going anywhere because sports is what I like to watch most of the time. It's the main reason why I have DirecTv. Dish Network will not be around too much longer. They are losing subs daily.


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

mdavej said:


> Sports is D*'s niche, and that's fine, but I certainly don't like subsidizing NFLST if E*'s claims are true. They probably are. The math is pretty simple. If the rights cost more than what they're getting from ST subs, then yes, everyone is subsidizing it.


I don't think that it is that simple especially since most people just want to say x sub times the 299.95 home subscriber price.

1) Commercial subscribers pay more and from the pricing I've seen it per seating capacity.

2) There is some percentage of home and commercial subs that are with DirecTV just because of sunday ticket. I think it is very reasonable to consider some of the profit these subs bring in year round as contributing to the total money brought in by Sunday Ticket even if it isn't specifically part of the Sunday Ticket charges. This is especially relevant for the commercial sub for things like sports bars. You almost have to have DirecTV with Sunday ticket so you can offer more games than your average customer can watch at home and this brings in year round commercial accounts which I'm assuming are pretty good margins.


----------



## BAHitman (Oct 24, 2007)

Heh... I just got off a chat session with Dish, and they had this to say...

setup for my 7 HDDVR's and 3 std recievers is $2876. and the monthly for "americas everything" is $176.98 + tax etc... 

The same setup with Premier and DirecTV is $169.00/mo so I'm ahead... I would never recoup the setup costs to move to Dish Network... 

The rep did not really try to convince me to switch... not that I intended too. the setup cost is outrageous!


----------



## DtvSlave (Nov 14, 2007)

BAHitman said:


> Heh... I just got off a chat session with Dish, and they had this to say...
> 
> setup for my 7 HDDVR's and 3 std recievers is $2876. and the monthly for "americas everything" is $176.98 + tax etc...
> 
> ...


and how much would it be for 7 hddvrs for a new customer with Direct?


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

I laugh whenever I see those commercials and ads saying dish is cheaper.

With my setup dish is around $5 MORE per month. Cheaper my butt.


----------



## peano (Feb 1, 2004)

Dish tends to ignore the fact that they have exorbitant fees for extra receivers and no phoneline. I mean $12 extra per month for a 622? C'mon 

Directv is quite a bit _cheaper_ with multiple receivers.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Msguy said:


> Not only does DirecTv have NFL Sunday Ticket, DirecTv is the only television service provider who has Baseball. Dish Network does not have baseball. DirecTv has both baseball and football. I'm not going anywhere because sports is what I like to watch most of the time. It's the main reason why I have DirecTv. Dish Network will not be around too much longer. They are losing subs daily.


Not to mention all the Grand Slam Tennis events, Some major golf toruneys as well with additional coverage for them, and RSNs that Dish dont have either like FSN Oklahoma.


----------



## Fredfa (Mar 27, 2003)

In addition to NFL ST, Dish also left MLB EI on the table. When it came time to ante up, Charlie passed -- as usual.

Now his spin doctors are doing their best to deal with the mess he has created.

DirecTV made one choice: do its best to satisfy sports viewers. Dish went the premium HD route. Of course that doesn't cost Charlie any money.


----------



## GodisGreat79 (Jun 12, 2006)

Dish is stupid I have Directv but Dish chages you $5 a month for Locals but Locals are included with DIrectv.


----------



## Fredfa (Mar 27, 2003)

So how about cable companies using their (back in the day) monopolies and forcing customers to subsidize their internet and phone buildouts for years and years?

Or ESPN being subsidized by all the folks (more than 60%) who *never* ever watch an ESPN channel.

But don't worry, the Dish claims are not true. At all. It is just Charlie chatter.

Actually, the extra costs absorbed by DirecTV go into a category known as acquisition expense. So they make a bit less profit. The costs of losing NFL ST would be far greater to D*.

It is amazing to me with Charlie's dismal DNS, TiVo, MLB (and on and on) track record that anyone believes anything the Dish people put out there. It is always easier to blame someone else than admit your own game plan was wrong.



mdavej said:


> Sports is D*'s niche, and that's fine, but I certainly don't like subsidizing NFLST if E*'s claims are true. They probably are. The math is pretty simple. If the rights cost more than what they're getting from ST subs, then yes, everyone is subsidizing it. The only reason I chose D* over E* to begin with was D* had more HD. I've been a happy subscriber for years, but now that they've turned their back on HD, their service doesn't meet my requirements anymore, so I'm actively shopping around. I'm probably not the kind of customer they want anyway.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

GodisGreat79 said:


> Dish is stupid I have Directv but Dish chages you $5 a month for Locals but Locals are included with DIrectv.


DirecTV charges for them to. If you dont carry them its $3 a month cheaper. Its built into the package like the DVR & HD fee in some packages but you do pay for it.


----------



## coldsteel (Mar 29, 2007)

GodisGreat79 said:


> Dish is stupid I have Directv but Dish chages you $5 a month for Locals but Locals are included with DIrectv.


DirecTV drops $3 off the bill if you drop locals. Dish just shows the cost before adding locals.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

coldsteel said:


> DirecTV drops $3 off the bill if you drop locals. Dish just shows the cost before adding locals.


Its not $5 its $3 a month. I dont have the locals & my package for Plus HD DVR is $72.99 instead of the normal $75.99.


----------



## Blitz68 (Apr 19, 2006)

RACJ2 said:


> Dish has been running a full page "Dish Network Why We Cost Less" ad in the Dallas Morning News and other newspapers across the country. They talk about the 1 billion D* paid for NFL ST rights. Then allude to the fact that that maybe that's why DirecTV customers pay an average of 15% more then the average Dish customer pays. I guess qualifying it with "maybe" allows them to get away with saying this in the ad.
> 
> Link to Dish Ad


We pay a little more because we are with the HD leader...not the follower


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

With Dish's latest commercial "Dish has 30 million viewers".


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

DtvSlave said:


> and how much would it be for 7 hddvrs for a new customer with Direct?


With the current promo, 7 HD DVR's with D* would be $1194. To compare it to the $2878 that was quoted for E*, you have to add $207 for 3 standard receivers. The total of $1401 is less then half the upfront cost of E*.

Although I checked the E* website and it states $200 for each additional HD DVR. So that $2878 quote seems awfully high. With there promo, 7 HD DVR's would be $1301. And you should be able to run the 3 SD TV's off of the HD DVR's. So D* is actually $100 more, unless there are other installation costs.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

mdavej said:


> Sports is D*'s niche, and that's fine, but I certainly don't like subsidizing NFLST if E*'s claims are true. They probably are. The math is pretty simple. If the rights cost more than what they're getting from ST subs, then yes, everyone is subsidizing it. The only reason I chose D* over E* to begin with was D* had more HD. I've been a happy subscriber for years, but now that they've turned their back on HD, their service doesn't meet my requirements anymore, so I'm actively shopping around. I'm probably not the kind of customer they want anyway.


It's obviously not true. Bars and commercial accounts pay tens of thousands of dollars a year for Sunday Ticket and then all the subs paying.

Besides the fact that DirecTV is actually cheaper then Dish in many cases for the same programming. And we won't talk about how much more expensive Dish is when you start adding more then 1 receiver.

Yea, it's just Dish being desperate and directly lying to the public.


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

bonscott87 said:


> It's obviously not true. Bars and commercial accounts pay tens of thousands of dollars a year for Sunday Ticket and then all the subs paying.
> 
> Besides the fact that DirecTV is actually cheaper then Dish in many cases for the same programming. And we won't talk about how much more expensive Dish is when you start adding more then 1 receiver.
> 
> Yea, it's just Dish being desperate and directly lying to the public.


Then again who isn't doing that today?


----------



## coldsteel (Mar 29, 2007)

RACJ2 said:


> With the current promo, 7 HD DVR's with D* would be $1194. To compare it to the $2878 that was quoted for E*, you have to add $207 for 3 standard receivers. The total of $1401 is less then half the upfront cost of E*.
> 
> Although I checked the E* website and it states $200 for each additional HD DVR. So that $2878 quote seems awfully high. With there promo, 7 HD DVR's would be $1301. And you should be able to run the 3 SD TV's off of the HD DVR's. So D* is actually $100 more, unless there are other installation costs.


Dish charges full price for any receiver past their artificial limit of 4 leased outputs.

So, the first duo-HDDVR is free, the second is $200. A third, to cover his third SDTV would be $549, then 4 solo-TV HDDVRs for $399 each, then $400 for a pair of multiswitches. I get $2745.

Monthly, just assuming America's Everything and all the duos have broadband connections, you're looking at about $155 a month, $165 with Platinum HD added on.

Wait, Dish only allows 6 receivers on an account anyway. Oh well.


----------



## roadrunner1782 (Sep 28, 2008)

peano said:


> Dish tends to ignore the fact that they have exorbitant fees for extra receivers and no phoneline. I mean $12 extra per month for a 622? C'mon
> 
> Directv is quite a bit _cheaper_ with multiple receivers.


Multiple receivers is the reason Dish would cost more for me! Although if I ever left D* I would switch to dish because it is still alot better than cable.


----------



## bscott (Jun 4, 2004)

As with most advertising, the intent of the ad is not to snare the 5-10% of the "highly educated" consumers that peruse boards such as this one or do a lot of research. It is aimed at the other 90-95% of the consumers who have no idea, don't care or will simply take it at face value. What amazes me about this whole thing is Dish's insistence on going after DirecTV. IMHO, they should be doing what they do best. Try to go after low-cost subs and attacking cable. Cable's insistence on pressuring people to sign up for triple-play's and all allows Dish to sweep in and offer a low-cost alternative to people who just want to watch some TV. They cannot compete with DirecTV on major content (don't want to hear about more movie channels or FLN...the majority of consumers don't watch 20 movie channels and the way most of these networks are they all show the same thing over and over and just shift it around the networks. This is why in my opinion D* has never really been all that excited about adding another HBO/Showtime?Starz multiplex channel). DISH does not have an apple to apples comparison to D* and to try and rile up D* subs saying they are paying for something that some may not want is asinine. Everybody pays for something they don't want on TV no matter who the provider is. I would say within the next year or so EVERYBODY will become rather equal in the number of HD channels that are offered. Each one is going to have one that the other doesn't. But ask the AVERAGE consumer and they don't know and probably don't care. All they want is to watch what they want to watch. If provider A has what they want to watch but they don't want to pay for it and provider B doesn't have it but has the price they want to pay then that's a decision they have to make.

It really is getting to be sad how much of this has turned in to a "my dad can beat up your dad" scenario. Especially here on many of the boards dedicated to DBS services. Every provider DBS, cable and telcos all have advantages and disadvantages. What gets me is how much DISH keeps going after their DBS breatheren when with sky rocketing cable costs they could be racking up a pretty nice slice of pie by going back and doing what I thought they did best. Maybe it's simply I don't care for anybody bad mouthing a competitor to get sales (and yes, D* is just as guilty about this at times) rather than simply making the consumer well informed about their own product and just presenting the facts.

hmmmmm......didn't realize how tall I was on this soap box. LOL


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

coldsteel said:


> Dish charges full price for any receiver past their artificial limit of 4 leased outputs.
> 
> So, the first duo-HDDVR is free, the second is $200. A third, to cover his third SDTV would be $549, then 4 solo-TV HDDVRs for $399 each, then $400 for a pair of multiswitches. I get $2745.


Ok, thanks! That's the info the website doesn't detail for you.


----------



## Reaper (Jul 31, 2008)

In the past year I had E* and D* and the price was pretty much the same. Once you get to about $110/month, what difference does $2-3 dollars per month make anyway?

There may be a grain of truth in that D* spreads the cost of NFLST over its subscriber base but, if they do, it apparently doesn’t make a significant difference to their bottom line versus E*.

This is just marketing spin, and I think that's fine.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

coldsteel said:


> DirecTV drops $3 off the bill if you drop locals.


DIRECTV doesn't give you the option of dropping locals. If they make them available in your area, you must pay for them.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

bonscott87 said:


> It's obviously not true. Bars and commercial accounts pay tens of thousands of dollars a year for Sunday Ticket and then all the subs paying.


It would be a very large bar indeed that was dropping "tens of thousands". The 2008 rate for up to 200 patrons was $2,698. That's a pretty sizable establishment in my area. To spend "tens of thousands", an establishment would need to support up to 2,000 patrons at a rate of up to $6.93 per patron per year.

You can't reasonably qualify this as a subsidy when Joe and the other five members of his Six Pack are spending $66 per year per person for a residential subscription.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

bscott said:


> What amazes me about this whole thing is Dish's insistence on going after DirecTV. IMHO, they should be doing what they do best. Try to go after low-cost subs and attacking cable. Cable's insistence on pressuring people to sign up for triple-play's and all allows Dish to sweep in and offer a low-cost alternative to people who just want to watch some TV.


The problem is that Dish's strategy no longer works; there are too many alternatives fighting over the low-end/low-cost-based customer. 3-5 years ago, cable didn't offer bundles and the phone companies didn't offer TV, so Dish was legitimately cheaper. Today, with Verizon and AT&T offering TV, and cable pushing the bundled prices, Dish's regular prices aren't pulling in those low-end customers in the kind of numbers they need to keep up with their monthly churn, and their whole pricing structure makes them unattractive to the high-end customer, not to mention the sports issues.










This is why Dish is going after DirecTV.


----------



## lee78221 (Sep 25, 2007)

Blitz68 said:


> We pay a little more because we are with the HD leader...not the follower


I don't remember who said this but:

"We don't one up our competitors, we eliminate them" was the jest.

Which I think all CEOs should do, trying to one up a competitor is (IMHO) stupid. Do what you do best and everything else will take care of itself.


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

harsh said:


> It would be a very large bar indeed that was dropping "tens of thousands". The 2008 rate for up to 200 patrons was $2,698. That's a pretty sizable establishment in my area. To spend "tens of thousands", an establishment would need to support up to 2,000 patrons at a rate of up to $6.93 per patron per year.


Using the $2,698 per establishment, if they sign up 37,065 business, they passed their break even point on their billion dollar investment. So I wonder how many sports bars, etc actually subscribe?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

If, and its a big if, Dish is cheaper (and I don't think its unilateral, I think it depends on exact setups, etc) Maybe its because they don't think they should have to pay licensing fees to companies that created and patented the technology they are currently using? 

Wonder how much rates will go up when they have to pay all those back fees, and then monthly fees?


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

RACJ2 said:


> Using the $2,698 per establishment, if they sign up 37,065 business, they passed their break even point on their billion dollar investment. So I wonder how many sports bars, etc actually subscribe?


I'd say pretty much all of them. 

Seriously though, there are a couple dozen bars in town that all have Sunday Ticket and that's just in my small city. You pretty much don't stay in business around here as any kind of sports bar without Sunday Ticket.

I'm just pulling a number out of my butt, but I'd say at least 10,000 commercial accounts out there, probably more.

Just 2 million regular Joe's at home paying an average of $279 is over half a billion right there. And that's not counting Superfan. Add in all the commercial accounts I think it's safe to say DirecTV get's back their billion each year. If not it's certainly close enough that they aren't "passing on" any cost to everyone that anyone would notice.

And like pointed out, one just has to compare packages with Dish, they are very similar in price.


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

bonscott87 said:


> Seriously though, there are a couple dozen bars in town that all have Sunday Ticket and that's just in my small city. You pretty much don't stay in business around here as any kind of sports bar without Sunday Ticket.
> 
> I'm just pulling a number out of my butt, but I'd say at least 10,000 commercial accounts out there, probably more.
> 
> Just 2 million regular Joe's at home paying an average of $279 is over half a billion right there. And that's not counting Superfan. Add in all the commercial accounts I think it's safe to say DirecTV get's back their billion each year.


If you just take the 50 states and divide that by the break even number, they only need about 750 business per state. If your small city has a couple dozen, that doesn't seem unrealistic. Besides which average Joe on this forum is actually paying full price for NFL ST + SF?


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

DtvSlave said:


> and how much would it be for 7 hddvrs for a new customer with Direct?


1 Free if you subscribed to Plus HD DVR so 6x$199 so $1194.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

harsh said:


> DIRECTV doesn't give you the option of dropping locals. If they make them available in your area, you must pay for them.


I dont believe that to be true. As far as I know its DNS or locals but not both. I have DNS and since my package dont have locals and if they were to get them my understanding is I have the right to stay with what I have. If I ever changed my package then I would probably have a problem though. I would say that for those that already have locals yeah you may be right in the sence that you might have a hard time taking them off but I still bet it can be done.


----------



## V'ger (Oct 4, 2007)

How about a DirecTV commercial showing a tech removing the Dish DVRs iut of people's homes due to losing the Tivo lawsuit. A scroll of "Dish has been ordered twice to disable DVR functionality and has lost patent judgemetn of $184 million and counting. DirecTV has no such problems. If you love DVR, subscribe to DirecTV"

I mean fair is fair, right? and its true, too. Not an implication.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

harsh said:


> It would be a very large bar indeed that was dropping "tens of thousands". The 2008 rate for up to 200 patrons was $2,698. That's a pretty sizable establishment in my area. To spend "tens of thousands", an establishment would need to support up to 2,000 patrons at a rate of up to $6.93 per patron per year.
> 
> You can't reasonably qualify this as a subsidy when Joe and the other five members of his Six Pack are spending $66 per year per person for a residential subscription.


I haven't seen a casino yet that didn't sub to NFLST and their capacity limit is huge.

Sure your average ma and pa bar in an area of 10000-3000 people will only be about 100-200 but in the top 5 city's there hundreds and maybe a thousand sports bars with capacity in the thousands. Remember capacity must include all people in the building not just customers.

So there are some companies that I'm sure are paying more then some people make in a year working full time for the package and SF.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

joshjr said:


> I dont believe that to be true. As far as I know its DNS or locals but not both. I have DNS and since my package dont have locals and if they were to get them my understanding is I have the right to stay with what I have. If I ever changed my package then I would probably have a problem though. I would say that for those that already have locals yeah you may be right in the sence that you might have a hard time taking them off but I still bet it can be done.


If locals are available in that area and you're changing your package you do not have the option of opting out of them. If you're in a grandfathered package without local channels you can keep it that way so long as you never change that package.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Also as a side not notice the companies doing the worst are the ones slamming out commercials about cost? Sprint is trying to do the same thing.

I think the more successful companies are the ones who want people to shop around to see the real value rather then believe a commercial they saw one time and think it's law. Sure those commercials might get you to look but the people who just believe them outright are the customers that will fall for it the next time as well.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

dish also has MENY OF THE RSN's AS GAME ONLY HD and they don;t have the bandwidth to show all feeds in a HD at one.


----------



## coldsteel (Mar 29, 2007)

Shades228 said:


> 1 Free if you subscribed to Plus HD DVR so 6x$199 so $1194.


Um, no.

The second HDDVR, a 612, would be $100 leased, the next 5 would be $399 each.

Sorry, question was about D*, not E*.


----------



## coldsteel (Mar 29, 2007)

V'ger;2140742 said:


> How about a DirecTV commercial showing a tech removing the Dish DVRs iut of people's homes due to losing the Tivo lawsuit. A scroll of "Dish has been ordered twice to disable DVR functionality and has lost patent judgemetn of $184 million and counting. DirecTV has no such problems. If you love DVR, subscribe to DirecTV"
> 
> I mean fair is fair, right? and its true, too. Not an implication.


Except D* could be sued for touching E* property...


----------



## jessshaun (Sep 14, 2005)

I just have to chime in on this one. My monthly bill for Directv with choice, 2 HDDVRs, and 1 SDDVR is: $81.99.

If I've done my math correctly, my bill with Dish would be: $94.93 
(I would want a separate DVR for each room, and NFL network which is on the top 200)
(I would also want all current HD channels that Dish carries, leaving the all HD packages useless)

top 200 with HD - 57.99
locals - 5.00
DVR - 5.98
DVR - 5.98
DVR - 5.98
second HD DVR - 7.00
third HD DVR - 7.00

So... We are all paying for NFL ST and Directv is higher huh?? Dish Network needs to try harder, because those of us educated enough to do the math, know better. Now if Dish would do away with the DVR fee for EACH receiver, they would be competitive with Directv.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

For all the Dish bashing here...I'll give them credit for providing a much larger selection of programming packages than DirecTV. It's much easier to find an package that will meet most needs at a lower cost. DirecTV should consider offering its customers more of a choice. HD only packages and a package in the $40/month price range.

Financially, it's also fact that the ARPU of Dish customers is significantly less than that of DirecTV customers. While Wall Street doesn't like that...it does suggest that most customers are paying less for Dish services. Is this because of Season Ticket? I dunno.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

jessshaun said:


> I just have to chime in on this one. My monthly bill for Directv with choice, 2 HDDVRs, and 1 SDDVR is: $81.99.
> 
> If I've done my math correctly, my bill with Dish would be: $94.93
> (I would want a separate DVR for each room, and NFL network which is on the top 200)
> ...


For me the price is about the same its what I would give up to go to Dish that would kill me. Here is a list of what I would miss but pay the same price.

NFL Sunday Ticket
MLB EI
FSN's Dish dont have
All the Grand Slam Tennis events with like 5-6 channels of coverage.
Believe it or not I love the DNS feeds I get with Directv as well. I like being able to record of the west coast.

The only thing I think I would gain from Dish is I would get locals in HD even but I also would be stuck with watching Chiefs and Rams each NFL season and thats about as bad as it gets. No thanks!!!!! With the prices being virtually the same there is no reason for me to lose a ton of sports programming to have Dish.


----------



## deaincaelo (Feb 5, 2009)

I hate to be a canary with just one song, but whether dish is cheaper than direct all comes down to if you can and will optimize your equipment.

You can get a second tv fee waived or a DVR fee waived with a duo or the 211. Ideally you should only end up paying the $2 extra per HDTV. This might not work out for everyone, but I imagine it does for most. Especially people who saving $5 a month on tv matters.

The $2800 price point of 7 tvs is an example. First off, theres a $50 install fee on all the purchased receivers that shouldn't get charged. Then by going with 622's instead of 722's you save $50 off the purchased and $100 off the leased. especially since your likely to get 722's anyway, if the 622's are out of stock. Get 211's with he ehd for anouther $100 a piece off the equipment, Use a 33 switch for anouther 50-80$ off. Should be around $1700ish. That's not tooo terribly shabby for a lot of purchased equipment that has theoretically a resale value. If you don't mind mirroring and using sneakernet, you can shave a bit more off that. Either way your monthly price should be lower then direct.

or you can buy this instead, which is cheaper then both for such a huge number of rooms. http://www.zeevee.com/connected-home/zvbox100

note on the graph: Isn't Q3 '07 when Direct put out that completely fictional 150 HD channels ad? I'd feel gypped if my commitment was almost up and they still didnt have the channels they "promised."


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

deaincaelo said:


> or you can buy this instead, which is cheaper then both for such a huge number of rooms. http://www.zeevee.com/connected-home/zvbox100
> 
> note on the graph: Isn't Q3 '07 when Direct put out that completely fictional 150 HD channels ad? I'd feel gypped if my commitment was almost up and they still didnt have the channels they "promised."


Thanks for the link to the ZvBox, I hadn't seen that option before.

As far as the 150 HD channels, I don't think most of us subscribed to D* because of that claim. Personally, I wanted more sports in HD and the free mix channels like "The US Open Golf Experience". I'm getting what I signed up for.


----------



## CincySaint (Jan 16, 2008)

The most basic part of the ad is false "We refuse to carry the NFL Sunday Ticket."

Sunday Ticket is the most sought after subscription programming service in the USA and the various providers fought for it and D* paid a handsome sum to get it. 

Dish wishes they had ST.


----------



## Cyber36 (Mar 20, 2008)

I think sucks to have to give up my Total Choice programming just to be able to get my locals. I couldn't even believe what the C.S.R. was telling me. Pay more money & lose channels that I watch alot to get the locals(+another $8). The eight bucks isn't the problem. Why can't they give me the locals without changing? They're not even crediting me for not carrying them. Free? I don't think so.........


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Ken S said:


> For all the Dish bashing here...I'll give them credit for providing a much larger selection of programming packages than DirecTV. It's much easier to find an package that will meet most needs at a lower cost. DirecTV should consider offering its customers more of a choice. HD only packages and a package in the $40/month price range.


Actually Dish usually gets panned for having too many packages and for being confusing. And then they change up their package names every year or so it seems to make it even more confusing. I do agree it would be nice for DirecTV to have something in between Family and Choice, but I will give them props for being straight forward and not confusing.



> Financially, it's also fact that the ARPU of Dish customers is significantly less than that of DirecTV customers. While Wall Street doesn't like that...it does suggest that most customers are paying less for Dish services. Is this because of Season Ticket? I dunno.


I think answer is a simple one: More Dish customers take the cheap package. The "low end" is what Dish has been going after for a long time and they even admitted that it has hurt them now because those people are the first to default on their bills and cancel in a recession. Meanwhile DirecTV has been targeting "high end" customers for a few years and it has paid off in that customers spend more and they are less likely to cancel in a downturn.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

coldsteel said:


> Um, no.
> 
> The second HDDVR, a 612, would be $100 leased, the next 5 would be $399 each.
> 
> Sorry, question was about D*, not E*.


I didn't quote for Dish I quoted for Directv. They only charge $199 for a leased HD DVR. So I quoted what the sign up cost would be for 7 HD DVR's if you did that with DirecTV. Which is what you asked.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

bonscott87 said:


> Actually Dish usually gets panned for having too many packages and for being confusing. And then they change up their package names every year or so it seems to make it even more confusing. I do agree it would be nice for DirecTV to have something in between Family and Choice, but I will give them props for being straight forward and not confusing.
> 
> I think answer is a simple one: More Dish customers take the cheap package. The "low end" is what Dish has been going after for a long time and they even admitted that it has hurt them now because those people are the first to default on their bills and cancel in a recession. Meanwhile DirecTV has been targeting "high end" customers for a few years and it has paid off in that customers spend more and they are less likely to cancel in a downturn.


DirecTV's packages are a bit simpler, but there's still little tripping points like HD Access, HD Extra, Sports Pack, SuperFan on the League packages, etc.

On the ARPU...you're once again making a financial comment..from the consumer point of view more choice is better. packages with lower price points afford more choices and it appears Dish customers take advantage of those packages.

Right now the two providers boil down to this. If you want NFL/MLB go with DirecTV. If you require 4+ DVRs go with DirecTV. if you want Movies/Premiums go with Dish. If you want a lower cost general interest package and don't require more than a basic 4-room setup (1-2 HDTVs & 1-2 SDTVs) then Dish is probably less costly as well.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Ken S said:


> DirecTV's packages are a bit simpler, but there's still little tripping points like HD Access, HD Extra, Sports Pack, SuperFan on the League packages, etc.
> 
> On the ARPU...you're once again making a financial comment..from the consumer point of view more choice is better. packages with lower price points afford more choices and it appears Dish customers take advantage of those packages.
> 
> Right now the two providers boil down to this. If you want NFL/MLB go with DirecTV. If you require 4+ DVRs go with DirecTV. if you want Movies/Premiums go with Dish. If you want a lower cost general interest package and don't require more than a basic 4-room setup (1-2 HDTVs & 1-2 SDTVs) then Dish is probably less costly as well.


People in the house impacts it as well. 1 receiver covering 2 rooms isn't an issue for a single person as they won't watch both at ths same time so taking up that tv to record something isn't an issue. However having that same receiver cover 2 people's room will run into issues recording.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

I can tell their advertising seems to be working to some extent in my neighborhood I've seen a slew of Dish installs lately and in more than a few cases DirecTV dishes coming down. I'm sure DirecTV isn't going to be filing in bankruptcy court anytime soon, but Dish has and continues to be a pretty resilient competitor.


----------



## gphvid (Jun 19, 2007)

Ken S said:


> I can tell their advertising seems to be working to some extent in my neighborhood I've seen a slew of Dish installs lately and in more than a few cases DirecTV dishes coming down. I'm sure DirecTV isn't going to be filing in bankruptcy court anytime soon, but Dish has and continues to be a pretty resilient competitor.


That it, until the promotion period ends, and they see their actual bill.

Hard to calculate anyway as the regular rate card appears to be missing from their web site. Only the promotional rate.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

gphvid said:


> That it, until the promotion period ends, and they see their actual bill.
> 
> Hard to calculate anyway as the regular rate card appears to be missing from their web site. Only the promotional rate.


I just went to their site and it listed the promotional rates with the regular rates right underneath them...pretty standard...cable and DirecTV do the same thing.


----------



## wmj5 (Aug 26, 2007)

I think D* should have a package with no sports in it, you know all people don't like sports and I don't have any use at all for any espn channel, I'm not running anybody down for watching sports, its everbody to his on, but if they had a package like that it might fool you how many customers they would pick up


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

wmj5 said:


> I think D* should have a package with no sports in it, you know all people don't like sports and I don't have any use at all for any espn channel, I'm not running anybody down for watching sports, its everbody to his on, but if they had a package like that it might fool you how many customers they would pick up


They already have the Family Package, which has no sports. Personally, I would like a package w/o kids channels and they don't even offer that. It would actually be nice if they had an "A La Cart" option where you could pick and choose channels. Although that probably won't happen since it would complicate billing. Since they seemed to be focused on adding sports enthusiasts, I doubt they will add any other packages w/o sports.

From my past correspondence with a marketing director at TW cable, sports channels are the most expensive (that's why they won't carry NFLN and NHLN). By offering them in packages, D* can disperse the individual channel costs across more subscribers.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

RACJ2 said:


> If you just take the 50 states and divide that by the break even number, they only need about 750 business per state. If your small city has a couple dozen, that doesn't seem unrealistic. Besides which average Joe on this forum is actually paying full price for NFL ST + SF?


There are more than that in my area of LA, OC, RS, and SB county alone. And I am not talking about the whole county, I am only talking about this little part of the Inland Empire.

LA county alone, I am sure, has more than 750 business with ST.


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

DodgerKing said:


> There are more than that in my area of LA, OC, RS, and SB county alone. And I am not talking about the whole county, I am only talking about this little part of the Inland Empire.
> 
> LA county alone, I am sure, has more than 750 business with ST.


I hear you, there are plenty down here in the Dallas/Fort Worth area as well. You have to take into consideration the less populated states that may not have near as many. So the 750 is an average/state, but I still think they are making a killing on businesses alone. The individual subscriptions are gravy.


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

RACJ2 said:


> Using the $2,698 per establishment, if they sign up 37,065 business, they passed their break even point on their billion dollar investment. So I wonder how many sports bars, etc actually subscribe?


Now I'm convinced that D* breaks even on NFL ST with bars, restaurants and casinos alone. The rates start at $945 for an occupancy of up to 50 people and ends with $48,000 for 10,000+ occupancy.

View attachment 19055


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

Shades228 said:


> People in the house impacts it as well. 1 receiver covering 2 rooms isn't an issue for a single person as they won't watch both at ths same time so taking up that tv to record something isn't an issue. However having that same receiver cover 2 people's room will run into issues recording.


How do you manage to connect two TVs in two different rooms to one box and have each TV changing channels independently?


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

mreposter said:


> How do you manage to connect two TVs in two different rooms to one box and have each TV changing channels independently?


A lot of Dishes DVRs have 2 independent outputs allowing you to watch 1 thing on the main tv in hd and second thing on a different tv in SD. They are still limited to only 2 sat tuners tho so depending on how much and when the 2 tvs see use it can be a big issue.


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

mreposter said:


> How do you manage to connect two TVs in two different rooms to one box and have each TV changing channels independently?


You can't do that with one receiver. Shades228 mentions "_1 receiver covering 2 rooms isn't an issue for a single person as they *won't *watch both at the same time"_


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

Back to the main topic... although I'm not much of a sports fan, I think Directv's NFL Sunday Ticket exclusive contract is likely a profit generator for the company. As many have said in this thread, it draws people to the service and increases overall revenues. The bar business is also huge. 

What I do get annoyed over about sports programming are channels like NFL Network and the dozen or so ESPNs that all subscribers are forced to pay for. These aren't free shopping/religious channels, Directv pays a per-subscriber fee for all of them, and the sports channels are some of the most expensive in the lineup. 

Others might complain that they don't want to pay the "Lifetime" tax or the "MSNBC" tax or the "Military Channel" tax, but none of these come close to what all subscribers are paying for the sports channels. 

Hate me if you want, it's probably my fault for being a New York Jets fan.


----------



## duffytoo (Mar 13, 2005)

I would gladly pay 30 % more for Direct instead of Dish


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

mreposter said:


> What I do get annoyed over about sports programming are channels like NFL Network and the dozen or so ESPNs that all subscribers are forced to pay for. These aren't free shopping/religious channels, Directv pays a per-subscriber fee for all of them, and the sports channels are some of the most expensive in the lineup.


You are absolutely correct about the cost of sports channels. I had a connection with the Marketing Director at TW Cable. I suggested they do à la carte pricing. I would drop all the kids programming and many others and mainly subsribe to sports.

He said its the most expensive and probably wouldn't save me anything, just less channels. Since the price per subscriber is high, thats probably why cable companies want to add NFL Network to their sports tier, instead of standard packages.


----------



## hbkbiggestfan (May 25, 2007)

The only thing that has me thinkning about switching to Dish (My D* Term is up) is TurboHD. It's seems like such a great deal for all the channels I really watch plus a couple D* does not have (WGN HD). Dish has a ton of fees however and it would cost me $200 to add a 2nd HD DVR with them. D* has offered me $99 for a 2nd HD DVR with $10 credit for 12/mo. Im still not sure if I will accept this offer or see If they will offer me more later on.


----------



## jonkeee (Jul 17, 2009)

I thought this was a really great article when I read it a few weeks ago. It had a nice chart that unfortunately this lacks showing the cost of some of these channels per household, based on the fees paid vs. actual viewership. NFL Network was way up there at something ridiculous like $8k per subscriber.

Time to Screen Out Unloved Channels

There is only one word for the amount of choice on TV: eye-glazing.

As the TV industry tries to come up with a new business model to deal with the challenges posed by online video, it should consider shrinking the number of channels.

It is doubtful viewers want as many as they have. In 2007, the average household tuned into only 16 channels of the 118 channels available, estimates Nielsen.

Indeed, the explosion of channels was driven by cable operators' need for a marketing tool to convince people to pay for more choice, given the presence of free broadcast TV. That gave rise to a system where channels developed for cable are paid affiliate fees by cable and satellite operators. Broadcast networks, which individually draw much bigger audiences, generally don't receive fees.

But what really distorts the picture is the absence of correlation between the size of the fees paid to individual cable channels and their audiences. Viacom's Nickelodeon is the most-watched cable channel, averaging about 1.7 million households a day last year, according to Nielsen. Yet it ranked 10th among cable channels in terms of affiliate fees in 2008, excluding premium channels, estimates SNL Kagan.

Kagan estimates Nickelodeon's annual affiliate revenue was worth $312 a household. In contrast, Discovery Communications' Discovery Kids earned affiliate revenue of $1,871 for each of its 20,000 average daily household viewers last year.

Channels showing live sports, such as Walt Disney's ESPN, draw the most fees per viewer, closely followed by channels owned by cable operators.

The industry can't solve the online-video challenge without dealing with the disparities in these fees. Because broadcasters miss out, cable operators can't stop them offering some of their best shows on the Internet, where they can seek an incremental audience. That has contributed to worries about people turning off their video subscription and using Internet TV instead.

Industry executives like to claim that people watch TV shows online because it is convenient. Maybe so. But some people also want to spend less on their cable bill. And one big factor driving up that bill is programming charges.

A first step toward reinventing the business model would be to link fees paid by TV distributors to viewership, with a minimum audience level set for any fees.

Some niche networks would likely go out of business. That would be a good thing. The TV industry suffers from an excess of supply. Shedding little-watched networks would restore some semblance of economic reason.

Money saved could be returned to customers through lower charges or redirected to broadcasters. That would level the playing field and make it easier for the industry to come up with a coherent approach to the Web.

-- Martin Peers


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

So ESPN charges a lot more per subscriber than Nickelodeon does? Surprise!!! I would imagine the costs of running ESPN are also grossly larger than it takes to run Nickelodeon, too.

If ESPN was targetted at such a limited audience as Nickelodeon is (mainly young children, I'm assuming) and had little to no actual live programming/broadcasts and if the athletes, etc. that ESPN carries made child wages, then I could see a comparison of the two actually meaning something.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

hbkbiggestfan said:


> The only thing that has me thinkning about switching to Dish (My D* Term is up) is TurboHD. It's seems like such a great deal for all the channels I really watch plus a couple D* does not have (WGN HD). Dish has a ton of fees however and it would cost me $200 to add a 2nd HD DVR with them. D* has offered me $99 for a 2nd HD DVR with $10 credit for 12/mo. Im still not sure if I will accept this offer or see If they will offer me more later on.


Be sure to do the math. Last time I did that with the Turbo HD package it only cost $5 more to get the Choice Xtra with HD and DVR package and you get all the SD channels to should you need them. Dish's Turbo HD package is mostly marketing hype and only worth it to a few. But maybe that's you. Plus you don't get dinged by all of Dish's nickle and diming you to death with fees.


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

JLucPicard said:


> So ESPN charges a lot more per subscriber than Nickelodeon does? Surprise!!! I would imagine the costs of running ESPN are also grossly larger than it takes to run Nickelodeon, too.
> 
> If ESPN was targetted at such a limited audience as Nickelodeon is (mainly young children, I'm assuming) and had little to no actual live programming/broadcasts and if the athletes, etc. that ESPN carries made child wages, then I could see a comparison of the two actually meaning something.


And maybe the reason some of these guys are paid 10's of millions of dollars a year is that it's so easy to extract that money from cable/sat viewer's wallets.


----------



## CincySaint (Jan 16, 2008)

That article seems a bit simplistic.

For one thing, advertisers are not just interested in the total number of viewers. High demand demographics like young men tend to watch programming like ESPN which leads to its higher rights fees.

For cable and satellite, the other factor is subscriber acquisition and retention. While I don't doubt that lots of people young and old enjoy Nick programming, I doubt there are many people that would have the inclusion of those channels drive their TV programming source decision. On the other hand, look at the fighting between D* and the cablecos over Sunday Ticket. Since ST has proven to be magnet for certain subs, the companies were willing to back up a money truck to the NFL and empty it.


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

CincySaint said:


> On the other hand, look at the fighting between D* and the cablecos over Sunday Ticket. Since ST has proven to be magnet for certain subs, the companies were willing to back up a money truck to the NFL and empty it.


Not sure what you mean by fighting between D* & cable company's over NFL ST. Only D* has been willing to pay the price to get it.


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

Competing bids from cable operators certainly forced Directv to pay more to renew the NFL contract (and likely forced them to accept the NFL Channel more on the league's terms.) Here's the opening paragraphs from an article from Multichannel.com:

_DirecTV's $4 billion contract extension for "NFL Sunday Ticket" was the big business news out of the pro football league's annual meeting in Dana Point, Calif. last week.
But the deal -- covering the 2011 to 2014 seasons at a 43% increase over the $700 million DirecTV is paying annually under its exclusive pact that expires in 2010 -- also holds major ramifications for cable operators and other distributors._

Directv is certainly trying add value to the package with new interactive features and the online stuff, but for NFL fans, the price increases are still going to sting.


----------



## AMike (Nov 21, 2005)

CincySaint said:


> The most basic part of the ad is false "We refuse to carry the NFL Sunday Ticket."
> 
> Sunday Ticket is the most sought after subscription programming service in the USA and the various providers fought for it and D* paid a handsome sum to get it.
> 
> Dish wishes they had ST.


This is the quote that made me laugh. "What we don't carry is NFL Sunday Ticket with out-of-market football games. We don't and we won't."

Right, Dish doesn't want a contract with the most successful sports league in the US. As said above, many different providers would love to pry that away from D*.

How many sportsbars have Dish Network? I would venture to say a small percentage due to the lack of Sunday Ticket and MLB. I was doing some research on possibly opening a sportsbar 2 years ago, and I spoke with a guy who had a successful bar in Wilmington, NC. He told me that people came into his place for College Football, and the NFL. DirecTV was the only option in his opinion for his clientele.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

AMike said:


> How many sportsbars have Dish Network? I would venture to say a small percentage due to the lack of Sunday Ticket and MLB.


Almost none.

DirecTV chooses to put a great deal of emphasis on sports programming and Dish does not.

Having now seen a great number of subscribers at Dish bail out in 2009 to date...they are likely looking for ways to attract subscribers.

No surprise there.


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

mreposter said:


> Competing bids from cable operators certainly forced Directv to pay more to renew the NFL contract (and likely forced them to accept the NFL Channel more on the league's terms.) Here's the opening paragraphs from an article from Multichannel.com:


Based on some other information in that article listed below, it still appears that cable companies didn't even get involved. I think D* offered a ton of money, because they knew they could still make a profit by having exclusive rights. The NFL wanted to throw cable co's a bone with the Red Zone, so they would stop whining about not really being able to compete.



> "It has been locked at the scrimmage line with such distributors as Time Warner Cable, Cablevision Systems and Suddenlink Communications over pricing and positioning issues."





> While some view the Red Zone Channel as a significant asset and an olive branch of sorts to distributors that have been shut out from the PPV package, others think the latest deal may not sit well with TV providers not offered a chance to get in on the full Sunday Ticket action.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

RACJ2 said:


> Based on some other information in that article listed below, it still appears that cable companies didn't even get involved. I think D* offered a ton of money, because they knew they could still make a profit by having exclusive rights. The NFL wanted to throw cable co's a bone with the Red Zone, so they would stop whining about not really being able to compete.


The last time Sunday Ticket was up for open bidding (around 2003/05 I believe) cable came right out and said they thought it was too expensive and didn't even bid. That's why I always laugh when they now complain about not having Sunday Ticket (such as Comcast crying to congress saying they'll let DirecTV carry Comcast Philly when they can carry ST). Please. They had their chance to come to the table for dinner and didn't even show up. It's their fault and their fault alone they don't have ST.

AS for the recent extension with cable not even involved, I'm sure it was probably a contract clause that said DirecTV could reup before a certain date without it going back out to open bidding to anyone. Now in 2014 I wouldn't doubt there will be open bidding again since it would have been almost 10 years since the last one.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

bonscott87 said:


> The last time Sunday Ticket was up for open bidding (around 2003/05 I believe) cable came right out and said they thought it was too expensive and didn't even bid. That's why I always laugh when they now complain about not having Sunday Ticket (such as Comcast crying to congress saying they'll let DirecTV carry Comcast Philly when they can carry ST). Please. They had their chance to come to the table for dinner and didn't even show up. It's their fault and their fault alone they don't have ST.
> 
> AS for the recent extension with cable not even involved, I'm sure it was probably a contract clause that said DirecTV could reup before a certain date without it going back out to open bidding to anyone. Now in 2014 I wouldn't doubt there will be open bidding again since it would have been almost 10 years since the last one.


Im just glad that D* has the contract for awhile longer. I will have to make sure that when its set to be up and am not under contract just in case I have to jump ship. I will follow where Sunday Ticket goes but I really hope it stays with D* at least. I dont crae who else carries it or if they even have it just a little cheaper as long as D* carries it. I like alot of their sports programming.


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

Another thing to note in the article:

_Considering an average price of $4 billion to $4.5 billion for the term of the four-year contract extension, Moffett wrote that "assuming a price increase from $300 to $350 for the 2 million current subscribers by 2011, and further assuming $80 monthly non-NFL monthly ARPU, DirecTV would need to acquire (or retain) about 400 to 450K incremental subscribers by 2012 who are solely attributable to the NFL Sunday Ticket package in order to break even on the contract."_

So brace yourselves sportsfans, you're prized ticket is going to cost you dearly.


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

mreposter said:


> Another thing to note in the article:
> 
> _Considering an average price of $4 billion to $4.5 billion for the term of the four-year contract extension, Moffett wrote that "assuming a price increase from $300 to $350 for the 2 million current subscribers by 2011, and further assuming $80 monthly non-NFL monthly ARPU, DirecTV would need to acquire (or retain) about 400 to 450K incremental subscribers by 2012 who are solely attributable to the NFL Sunday Ticket package in order to break even on the contract."_
> 
> So brace yourselves sportsfans, you're prized ticket is going to cost you dearly.


It probably will go up, but as has been discussed in other threads, they probably break even with sales to sports bars and casinos. Sports Bars Pricing


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

Ken S said:


> I can tell their advertising seems to be working to some extent in my neighborhood I've seen a slew of Dish installs lately and in more than a few cases DirecTV dishes coming down. I'm sure DirecTV isn't going to be filing in bankruptcy court anytime soon, but Dish has and continues to be a pretty resilient competitor.


Have you seen Dish's latest commercial?.When they talk about sports they say"You will find all the big games on Dishnetwork for less money than DirecTV"!.That is probably why you are seeing what you are seeing and why there will probably be more of these.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=161635


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

mreposter said:


> Another thing to note in the article:
> 
> _Considering an average price of $4 billion to $4.5 billion for the term of the four-year contract extension, Moffett wrote that "assuming a price increase from $300 to $350 for the 2 million current subscribers by 2011, and further assuming $80 monthly non-NFL monthly ARPU, DirecTV would need to acquire (or retain) about 400 to 450K incremental subscribers by 2012 who are solely attributable to the NFL Sunday Ticket package in order to break even on the contract."_
> 
> So brace yourselves sportsfans, you're prized ticket is going to cost you dearly.


Moffett is pro-dish & as others have said he doesnt even factor in bars etc.

I would call him an idiot but that would be insulting to the word idiot.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

BattleZone said:


> The problem is that Dish's strategy no longer works; there are too many alternatives fighting over the low-end/low-cost-based customer. 3-5 years ago, cable didn't offer bundles and the phone companies didn't offer TV, so Dish was legitimately cheaper. Today, with Verizon and AT&T offering TV, and cable pushing the bundled prices, Dish's regular prices aren't pulling in those low-end customers in the kind of numbers they need to keep up with their monthly churn, and their whole pricing structure makes them unattractive to the high-end customer, not to mention the sports issues.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's not the real issue. The real issue was that alot of Dish owners bought sub-prime mortages (And this is true...)


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

mreposter said:


> So brace yourselves sportsfans, you're prized ticket is going to cost you dearly.


Nothing new there. It'll keep going up $20 a year like it has every year for a decade. Just like the other sports package also keep going up every year usually $10-$20 a year.


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

Slightly off topic, but could part of Dish's loss of subscribers be related to AT&T's switch from Dish to Directv for local market combo services? I'm curious how badly that deal hurt Dish.


----------



## Fredfa (Mar 27, 2003)

Of course Nickleodeon routinely gets far higher ratings than ESPN.

And since ESPN is NEVER watched by close to two-thirds of the nation's households, that is over $3 billion a year it gets in sub fees from folks who never, ever watch it. And that makes it easier for ESPN to pay those hefty carriage costs for every event and NCAA conference when virtually every American family is forced to pay $4 and up for the ESPN suite of channels. And ESPN has the added advantage of not having to actually get customers to pay -- the cable, sat, and telcos manage that for them. It is like every family in the nation being forced to buy a loaf of bread and a 10-gallon jug of detergent every time they wanted to buy eggs and milk.

And by the way - ESPN is targeted, too -- to males, especially 18-49 males.

The most recent (week ending July 17th) Nielsen cable network ratings:
*(Total Day Average, in thousands)*
*1. Nickleodeon 2,471*
2. Disney 2,166
3. Nick at Nite 1,756
4. USA 1,536
5. TNT 1,227
6. Adult Swim1,175
7. Fox News Channel 1,043
8. Cartoon 927
9. TBS 885
10. Tru 757
*11. ESPN 757*
12. Food745
13. FX 735
14. Lifetime 702
15. Discovery 691
16. A&E 690
17. History 675
18. HGTV 647
19. Family 615
20. CNN 588

*(Prime Time, in thousands)*
1. Disney 3,308
2. USA 3,181
3. TNT 2,256
*4. Nick at Nite 2,091*
5. Fox News Channel 1,954
*6. ESPN 1,937*
7. TBS 1,510
8. FX 1,303
9. Syfy 1,259
10. Discovery 1,248
11. HGTV 1,242
12. Family 1,224
13. A&E 1,203
14. Food 1,203
15. History 1,157
16. Lifetime 1,145
17. Tru 1,068
18. AMC 1,019
19. TLC 980
20. Hallmark 966



JLucPicard said:


> So ESPN charges a lot more per subscriber than Nickelodeon does? Surprise!!! I would imagine the costs of running ESPN are also grossly larger than it takes to run Nickelodeon, too.
> 
> If ESPN was targetted at such a limited audience as Nickelodeon is (mainly young children, I'm assuming) and had little to no actual live programming/broadcasts and if the athletes, etc. that ESPN carries made child wages, then I could see a comparison of the two actually meaning something.


----------



## Fredfa (Mar 27, 2003)

According to both DISH and DirecTV it hurt a little. (But then having AT&T sell DISH in the past helped, too.)



mreposter said:


> Slightly off topic, but could part of Dish's loss of subscribers be related to AT&T's switch from Dish to Directv for local market combo services? I'm curious how badly that deal hurt Dish.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Fredfa said:


> According to both DISH and DirecTV it hurt a little. (But then having AT&T sell DISH in the past helped, too.)


DirecTV said in their 1st quarter call that it helped a bit but didn't explain the huge jump in new subs. Plus the AT&T deal didn't even start until halfway thru the quarter. It was mainly due to less people leaving which can be seen by their record low churn rate. So if they signed up 1 million new subs but half a million leave then their +500K for the quarter.
What happens at Dish is they sign up 1 million new subs but lose 1.1 million, thus a -100K loss.

Numbers are just for example to explain the loss by Dish.


----------



## Fredfa (Mar 27, 2003)

"Discussed in other threads" sure as heck doesn't make it true. In fact, it is not. There are not 35,000 sports bars and casinos in the country subscribing to NFL ST. In fact, show me any credible evidence there even ARE 35,000 sports bars in the country.

If there were, the numbers would make sense. But there are not. Show me any credible evidence (other than "there must be") to support this fallacious claim which gets passed around like some kind of Biblical quotation.

Sure DirecTV makes money from sports bars and casinos. But it doesn't come close to covering the entire payment to the NFL.



RACJ2 said:


> It probably will go up, but as has been discussed in other threads, they probably break even with sales to sports bars and casinos. Sports Bars Pricing


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Urban legends are born from enough people repeating something to the point where most people believing it to be fact (even when it is not).

I have not seen any evidence anywhere to substantiate this claim, but could also understand how a competitor would enjoy spreading such a rumor.


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

Fredfa said:


> "Discussed in other threads" sure as heck doesn't make it true. In fact, it is not. There are not 35,000 sports bars and casinos in the country subscribing to NFL ST. In fact, show me any credible evidence there even ARE 35,000 sports bars in the country.
> 
> If there were, the numbers would make sense. But there are not. Show me any credible evidence (other than "there must be") to support this fallacious claim which gets passed around like some kind of Biblical quotation.
> 
> Sure DirecTV makes money from sports bars and casinos. But it doesn't come close to covering the entire payment to the NFL.


Unfortunately I don't have the USA Yellow Pages of Sports Bars and Casinos handy, but its realistic that they could cover the 1 billion /yr cost. Now that I have the actual pricing, here is some additional calcs. The truth is that D* will never disclose that information, so we will never know.

If you look at the list of casinos for Las Vegas, there are 147. Using the 2000 to 5000 patron rate of $20,000 as an average, you are already close to $3,000,000. Now take Reno and the rest of the cities in Nevada, Atlantic City, NJ and all the other casinos across the country in Indian reservations, etc. I think the number would be several million more. Link: Casinos in Vegas

Now lets look at bars and pubs, for example in your home town. There are about 300 listed in LA alone. When I calculated 37,000 bars in the other thread, I was using $2698 that someone guessed at. If you use the $3,885 for 350-500 patrons, you would only need 25,750 or 514/state. So only 214 more in the whole state of CA. Of course I have no way of knowing how many subscribe, but a majority of bars in the Dallas area do. Link: Bars & Pubs in LA

So my answer is "no I can prove it", but I feel confident its true. Now can you please provide proof of your erroneous statement, "Sure DirecTV makes money from sports bars and casinos. But it doesn't come close to covering the entire payment to the NFL". The truth is that D* will never disclose this info, so we will never know.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Fredfa said:


> "Discussed in other threads" sure as heck doesn't make it true. In fact, it is not. There are not 35,000 sports bars and casinos in the country subscribing to NFL ST. In fact, show me any credible evidence there even ARE 35,000 sports bars in the country.
> 
> If there were, the numbers would make sense. But there are not. Show me any credible evidence (other than "there must be") to support this fallacious claim which gets passed around like some kind of Biblical quotation.
> 
> Sure DirecTV makes money from sports bars and casinos. But it doesn't come close to covering the entire payment to the NFL.


Number of bars and restaurants in the US.

Employers
Food services & drinking places 504,641
Drinking places (alcoholic beverages) 48,856

Nonemployers
Food services & drinking places 694,310
Drinking places (alcoholic beverages) 71,618

Source: Census Bureau.
http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/data/industry/E722410.HTM

Drinking places by state.
This data set gives a state by state breakdown of the number of
drinking establishments. It also gives sales, annual payroll and
employee numbers.
Source: Census Bureau.
http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/data/industry/E7224.HTM

Drinking places (alcoholic beverages).

Total number of firms Number of establishments.
All firms 48,353 47,787
Single unit firms 47,787 47,787
Multiunit firms 566 1069
Firms with 1 establishment 333 333
Firms with 2 establishments 170 340
Firms with 3 or 4 establishments 45 152
Firms with 5 to 9 establishments 11 69
Firms with 10 establishments or more 7 175
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-ds_name=EC0272SSSZ3&-NAICS2002=7224

Competition in the sports bar sector.

Major players include:
Hooters of America ? 350 outlets
Champps Entertainment Inc. ? 60 outlets
Buffalo Wings Inc ? 220 outlets
Damon?s International ? 140 outlets
Total Entertainment Restaurant Corp ? 65 outlets
ESPN Zone ? 8 outlets
Fox Sports Skybox - 7 outlets
Fox Sports Grill ? 6 outlets


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

sigma1914 said:


> Number of bars and restaurants in the US.
> 
> Employers
> Food services & drinking places 504,641
> ...


Thanks sigma1914, I was looking for the USA Yellow Pages of Sports Bars & Casinos, but should have been checking the census bureau. Any info on Casinos?


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

RACJ2 said:


> Thanks sigma1914, I was looking for the USA Yellow Pages of Sports Bars & Casinos, but should have been checking the census bureau. Any info on Casinos?


I found those on google, first. :lol:

There are 47 states in United States which have 1511 legal gambling facilities available in total. The 1511 gambling facilities consist of casinos and pari-mutuel facilities. 
http://www.worldcasinodirectory.com/american-casinos.asp


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Fredfa said:


> There are not 35,000 sports bars and casinos in the country subscribing to NFL ST. In fact, show me any credible evidence there even ARE 35,000 sports bars in the country.


LOL. You're kidding right? 

There are over two dozen sports bars just in my little city and most have Sunday Ticket. When I was on my last vacation we went thru quite a few small towns, we're talking 500 people, one grocery store and 3 bars type.  In every one of those towns almost every bar had Sunday Ticket. We asked a couple of the owners why and said they make most of their money for the week on Sunday's during NFL season because everyone in town comes to the bar to watch the games.

There are most certainly 35K sports bars nationwide and that number is quite low. And you can bet most have Sunday Ticket. You don't operate a good sports bar without it. One of the bars in my town thought they could just go with cable and didn't think they needed Sunday Ticket. Boy were they wrong. They are dead...DEAD on Sunday and nobody went there even for Monday Night Football. Now they finally got DirecTV and Sunday Ticket but it's too late for them, they have the reputation for not having the sports packages and nobody goes there. It'll probably close soon due to lack of business.


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

sigma1914 said:


> I found those on google, first. :lol:
> 
> There are 47 states in United States which have 1511 legal gambling facilities available in total. The 1511 gambling facilities consist of casinos and pari-mutuel facilities.
> http://www.worldcasinodirectory.com/american-casinos.asp


Nice find, so there is the yellow pages of US casinos! It's possible they could get $30 million from casinos at $20,000 per.


----------



## Fredfa (Mar 27, 2003)

"...There are most certainly 35K sports bars nationwide and that number is quite low. And you can bet most have Sunday Ticket..."

And your source for this spouting of "facts"?

You are guessing, hypothosizing, wishing, whatever. Still no hard *facts *about the numbers of sports bars.

I don't care what kind of neighborhood you live in, that just doesn't fly -- as facts. At all.

If Dish wants to put it out there that its competitor is making everyone pay for ST and it is making a pile of money off of the subs, then that just makes DISH look even sillier for not getting into the bidding for ST (or March Madness and bailing on MLB-EI, too.)

But still. Some facts, please. Not "everyone I know goes to sports bars" or "I can see 12 sports bars from my roof so there must be 100,000 in the nation" or other claims like that.

Facts. And there there still aren't any hard facts to support a claim of close to 40,000 sports bars in the US.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Fredfa said:


> "...There are most certainly 35K sports bars nationwide and that number is quite low. And you can bet most have Sunday Ticket..."
> 
> And your source for this spouting of "facts"?
> 
> ...


I gave plenty of proof.


----------



## Fredfa (Mar 27, 2003)

RACJ2 said:


> Nice find, so there is the yellow pages of US casinos! It's possible they could get $30 million from casinos at $20,000 per.


And what percentage of casinos a accept sports wagering and/or b) want to encourage patrons to leave the tables and watch Football on Sundays?


----------



## Fredfa (Mar 27, 2003)

Not one single mention of the number of sports bars.



sigma1914 said:


> I gave plenty of proof.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Fredfa said:


> Not one single mention of the number of sports bars.


Try again. The proof is there, you just don't realize the term "sports bar" has an extremely wide range of interpretation.


----------



## coldsteel (Mar 29, 2007)

Guys, does it matter? The ad is silly and patently untrue. Live with it, ignore it, whatever. Just chill.


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

Fredfa said:


> And what percentage of casinos a accept sports wagering and/or b) want to encourage patrons to leave the tables and watch Football on Sundays?


I give up, what percentage? I can't prove it and you have provided nothing to back your claim. Keep in mind that you don't have to be a sports bar to have NFL ST, many establishments that serve alcohol have it. My comment about businesses paying the cost for NFL ST is just an opinion and sigma1914 provided census numbers that shows it's possible.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Fredfa said:


> "...There are most certainly 35K sports bars nationwide and that number is quite low. And you can bet most have Sunday Ticket..."
> 
> And your source for this spouting of "facts"?
> 
> ...


LOL. It only takes common sense and knowing how our society is. But hey, believe what you want.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

For those looking for more numbers here is something I have found, some of this looks like it was posted above. Note the numbers are from 3 years ago in 2006.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/762475.html



> DirecTV programming is available in 35,000 bars and restaurants across
> the United States.
> Source: DirecTV
> http://www.directv.com/see/landing/dtv_onthego.html





> DirecTV will make pay-per-view packages available to roughly 30,000
> sports bars and commercial establishments it services.
> Source: The Houston Roundball Review.


So from DirecTV themselves 3 years ago they are in 35,000+ bars and restaurants. I'm sure that number is higher today.

DirecTV also has PPV sports packages in 30,000 establishments. One would think common sense says that all of them (or 95%) would have Sunday Ticket. Why wouldn't they? And again, the number is probably higher today.

So common sense (look out) says that even on the low side there are probably at least 25,000 sports bars and establishments have Sunday Ticket. Could be as high as 30,000 or even higher then that based on growth the past 3 years.


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

bonscott87 said:


> So from DirecTV themselves 3 years ago they are in 35,000+ bars and restaurants. I'm sure that number is higher today.
> 
> DirecTV also has PPV sports packages in 30,000 establishments. One would think common sense says that all of them (or 95%) would have Sunday Ticket. Why wouldn't they? And again, the number is probably higher today.
> 
> So common sense (look out) says that even on the low side there are probably at least 25,000 sports bars and establishments have Sunday Ticket. Could be as high as 30,000 or even higher then that based on growth the past 3 years.


Nice find! I would say that those of us in the "Bars & casinos cover the cost of NFL ST" camp, have more proof then those in the "Bars & Casinos don't even come close to covering the entire payment to the NFL". Although this is just an opinion.


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

How much do the bars pay for NFLST? It must be more than regular customers.

If it's the same price, out of the 16 million D* customers, and 1 billion dollars/year, at $239 charge for each customer, 26% of D*'s customers would need to subscribe for D* to break even. But only 10% of its subscribers have NFLST.

If all the 500,000 "bars" (using that term loosely) in the country all subscribed and were charged five times as much, ($1120), then 12% of household customers would still have to subscribe for D* to break even. Still 2% short. Maybe they charge the bars even more. 
[edit: just noticed in previous post D* is only in 35,000 bars. They must charge the bars a LOT more).

So I do think that regular customers are paying a little bit as well. Of course, charging everybody an extra $5 only generates $80 million, but that is 8% of the cost and would cover the shortfall and would put them back in the black.

And I think the price of NFLST will go up around 30% over the two years to try to cover the extra $300 million it's paying to the NFL. Of course, it risks losing subscribers if the price is too high. Which is why I think D* is "branching out", allowing viewing of the games on mobile phones and PCs to non-D* subscribers for a fee.


----------



## gpg (Aug 19, 2006)

Look here for DirecTV's commercial rates for bars & restaurants. Scroll down for NFLST prices.

http://www.directv.com/images/Direc..._and_Restaurants_Public_Viewing_Paperwork.pdf


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

I think it was posted earlier as well but here is the skinny:

Even the smallest bar, 1-50 seats pays $950.
I think your "typical" small/medium bar would fall into the 100-200 size which charges $2500+ !

Needless to say DirecTV has always viewed Sunday Ticket as a "loss leader" in that it gets all those subs paying an average of $75+ a month in a base package. That is where they make most of their money.
The cost of Sunday Ticket itself is probably pretty close to covered between regular subs and bars but certainly covered in their eyes if they had 1-2 million less subs without Sunday Ticket. Thus it "pays for itself" in that way even if not 100% covered by subscriptions.


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

bonscott87 said:


> I think it was posted earlier as well but here is the skinny:
> 
> Even the smallest bar, 1-50 seats pays $950.
> I think your "typical" small/medium bar would fall into the 100-200 size which charges $2500+ !


That's not right. The smallest bar pays $5000. A regular bar (101-200 people) pays $10500!!!

$10500 x 35000 = $367.5 million from bars.

From its 1.6 million NFLST households, at $239 a pop, that's $382.4 million. That's $750 million total. I think D* is paying $700 million now to the NFL, so they are making a $50 million profit (at worst, breaking even).

Once D*'s NFL Sunday ticket price goes up 43% in two years, will they pass that along? Will people pay $560 a year for NFLST?


----------



## ajc68 (Jan 23, 2008)

I have to laugh at that fraudulent Dish ad that's been playing non-stop lately. You know the one where they say they have the best picture and prices, and call D* "The other guys". They make a very shady claim about people paying too much for sports on D* when they have that stuff too. They don't actually say what, but they imply that you can get all the same stuff for less money. Uh, no you can't and it's not even close (NFL, MLB, etc.).


----------



## JJJBBB (May 26, 2007)

Well, I reckon NASCAR will keep DirecTV on top no matter what happens. Has anyone seen a pit without a DirecTV dish at it? Dang it, that hotpass alone would keep me with them... ferget that fancy football package.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

bobcamp1 said:


> That's not right. The smallest bar pays $5000. A regular bar (101-200 people) pays $10500!!!
> 
> $10500 x 35000 = $367.5 million from bars.
> 
> ...


Not sure where your pulling your numbers from, but they are wrong.

From the commerical accounts pdf found here: http://www.directv.com/images/Direc..._and_Restaurants_Public_Viewing_Paperwork.pdf



Fire Code Occupancy|2009 Season Rate| 2009 New Customer Offer
1-50|$945.99|$599.97
51-100|$1,049.97|$789.99
101-200|$2,519.97|$1,889.97
201-350|$3,464.97|$2,597.97
351-500|$3,884.97|$2,912.97
501-750|$4,199.97|$3,149.97
751-1,000|$5,249.97|$3,936.99
1,001-1,500|$8,399.97|$6,299.97
1,501-2,000|$10,499.97|$7,874.97
2,001-5,000|$19,949.97|$14,961.99
5,001-10,000|$39,899.97|$29,924.97
10,001+|$48,089.97|$36,066.99

There are a good number of national chains that have DirecTv, such as Hooters, Buffalo Wild Wings, etc. All those franchises add up in a hurry.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

RobertE said:


> There are a good number of national chains that have DirecTv, such as Hooters, Buffalo Wild Wings, etc. All those franchises add up in a hurry.


Heck, even the TGI Friday's in our city has Sunday Ticket. Not sure if they all do. They are more restaurant but they have a decent sized bar. Why they have DirecTV with all the sports packages? Cause the increased business pays for the packages real easy. They keep the bar full even on a "slow" Sunday afternoon in November.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

bobcamp1 said:


> From its 1.6 million NFLST households, at $239 a pop,


Actually the last numbers (and they don't release official numbers) is that 2 to 2.5 million people get Sunday Ticket. And early bird price is $279, regular price is $299.


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

RobertE said:


> Not sure where your pulling your numbers from, but they are wrong.
> 
> From the commerical accounts pdf found here: http://www.directv.com/images/Direc..._and_Restaurants_Public_Viewing_Paperwork.pdf
> 
> ...


I pulled it from your link and other posts in this thread, but read the numbers wrong. So D* is probably short, and Dish is correct. So what? Everyone does it, including Dish.

(Who has a 10000+ occupancy? Stadiums?)


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

bobcamp1 said:


> I pulled it from your link and other posts in this thread, but read the numbers wrong. So D* is probably short, and Dish is correct. So what? Everyone does it, including Dish.
> 
> (Who has a 10000+ occupancy? Stadiums?)


The first thing that springs to mind is casinos. You know those places where it is actually legal to bet on the games you are watching on sunday ticket =)


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

bobcamp1 said:


> I pulled it from your link and other posts in this thread, but read the numbers wrong. So D* is probably short, and Dish is correct. So what? Everyone does it, including Dish.
> 
> (Who has a 10000+ occupancy? Stadiums?)


Casino's in Vegas maybe.


----------



## Albie (Jan 26, 2007)

bobcamp1 said:


> (Who has a 10000+ occupancy? Stadiums?)


Certain Casinos - Wow I was sure slow!


----------

