High Def Forum
Thank you for visiting. This is our website archive. Please visit our main website by clicking the logo above.

D* would be so much better

png12977
08-18-2005, 11:44 AM
The thing that really has hurt customers, is that the FCC didn't stop the monopoly of them having the exclusive rights to Sunday Ticket, that's their whole bread and butter. If D.N. and cable had it too, D* would have to do so much more to keep customers happy. I'm surprised cable and D.N. didn't try to stop this, or maybe they did and failed. I guarantee you we would have had ESPN2HD and TNTHD a long time ago and the HDDVR wouldn't have been so expensive.

jpnuzzo
08-18-2005, 01:04 PM
The thing that really has hurt customers, is that the FCC didn't stop the monopoly of them having the exclusive rights to Sunday Ticket, that's their whole bread and butter. If D.N. and cable had it too, D* would have to do so much more to keep customers happy. I'm surprised cable and D.N. didn't try to stop this, or maybe they did and failed. I guarantee you we would have had ESPN2HD and TNTHD a long time ago and the HDDVR wouldn't have been so expensive.

That makes no sense. The FCC has no jurisdiction over it.

The NFL owns all games & the broadcast rights to them. The NFL sold D* the exclusive rights to transmit out-of-market Sunday afternoon games. The price paid was based on D* not sharing ST games with any other multichannel provider.

ESPN2-HD and TNT-HD? It's this simple:
Non-exclusive ST = far less $$ = no new satellites = no new HD.

png12977
08-18-2005, 01:07 PM
How come D.N. has far fewer subscribers and less money than D* and has more HD content?

jpnuzzo
08-18-2005, 01:13 PM
How come D.N. has far fewer subscribers and less money than D* and has more HD content?

Amount of HD content is not related to exclusivity of Sunday Ticket.

And again: the FCC has no jurisdiction over whether the NFL can negotiate exclusive broadcasting contracts.

png12977
08-18-2005, 03:17 PM
I think your wrong in that the amound of HD content has nothng to do with Sunday Ticket's exclusivity. D* knows that NFL fans have no choice but to stick with them, so therefore thay can take thier old sweet time in adding additional HD content and don't have to work as hard to keep customers happy. D.N. knows that since they can't provide sunday ticket, they need to kepp ahead of D* as far as HD content

jpnuzzo
08-18-2005, 08:06 PM
Wait, let's get this straight.

First, you said the FCC should prohibit the exclusivity of ST. Now you say that exclusivity allows D* to screw its subscribers.

The FCC issue, is simply not possible, it's not their responsibility and they are not empowered to intervene that way.

As for the conspricy theory.....
The benchmark for multichannel distributors which largely affects their stock price, is net subscriber gain. That's how many subscribers they gained, minus those lost, usually during a fiscal quarter.

D* stands to gain far more subscribers, and prevent current subscribers from leaving, by adding HD content.

Fans always have a choice. Fans can go to the local sports bar with ST, and watch what they want.

Having ST exclusive provides a revenue stream that allows D* to launch 2 new sats... once functional, D* will have the content you whine about.

For over 2 months Spaceway 2 has been on the launch pad, its launch delayed because someone else's satellite was not ready to share the flight.

So you must be accusing D* of:
a) being cheap by not owning its own launch facility
-or-
b) sabotaging the other satellite, just to make you miserable

Again, your conspiracy theory makes no sense at all.

hoorta
08-19-2005, 12:21 AM
That makes no sense. The FCC has no jurisdiction over it.

The NFL owns all games & the broadcast rights to them. The NFL sold D* the exclusive rights to transmit out-of-market Sunday afternoon games. The price paid was based on D* not sharing ST games with any other multichannel provider.

ESPN2-HD and TNT-HD? It's this simple:
Non-exclusive ST = far less $$ = no new satellites = no new HD.

Nah- the NFL is all about money. They would have sold DTV down the river in a heartbeat, if anyone else had outbid them for the contract. What puzzling to me is why the NFL let D* keep the contract, as cable still has more market penetration than D* and if I'm the NFL, I want to put my product in as many homes as possible. Don't get the NFL beancounters logic of x number of ST subscribers @ $200 per as opposed to 4x ST subscribers wide open @ $150 per. Unless D* is using ST as a loss leader, forking over virtually all the revenue to the NFL just to keep the captive audience of hardcore NFL fans, which I'm sure is quite extensive.

Jimbos
08-19-2005, 04:10 AM
Nah- the NFL is all about money. They would have sold DTV down the river in a heartbeat, if anyone else had outbid them for the contract. What puzzling to me is why the NFL let D* keep the contract, as cable still has more market penetration than D* and if I'm the NFL, I want to put my product in as many homes as possible. Don't get the NFL beancounters logic of x number of ST subscribers @ $200 per as opposed to 4x ST subscribers wide open @ $150 per. Unless D* is using ST as a loss leader, forking over virtually all the revenue to the NFL just to keep the captive audience of hardcore NFL fans, which I'm sure is quite extensive.

Make that $ 325. if ya want HD :rolleyes:

Jimbo

jpnuzzo
08-19-2005, 04:40 AM
Nah- the NFL is all about money. They would have sold DTV down the river in a heartbeat, if anyone else had outbid them for the contract. What puzzling to me is why the NFL let D* keep the contract, as cable still has more market penetration than D* and if I'm the NFL, I want to put my product in as many homes as possible. Don't get the NFL beancounters logic of x number of ST subscribers @ $200 per as opposed to 4x ST subscribers wide open @ $150 per. Unless D* is using ST as a loss leader, forking over virtually all the revenue to the NFL just to keep the captive audience of hardcore NFL fans, which I'm sure is quite extensive.

First, you answered your own question: the NFL, all about the money, sold to the highest bidder. That's why D* still has it. My equation pertains to D*, not the NFL.

As for the rest, you miss the mark. The original post said the FCC should have disallowed the deal; and that D* subscribers are being denied other HD content because the ST contract is exclusive. How the NFL negotiates is irrelevant to both points.

png12977
08-19-2005, 12:06 PM
The point you don't get is that competition drives down prices and forces companies to do better knowing that the customer can go somewhere else. Yes we can switch to cable or D.N., but not if you want Sunday Ticket. My point is D* would have more programming and the equipment wouldn't be so expensive if people could switch to cable or D.N. for sunday ticket.

spiderweber
08-19-2005, 12:14 PM
I think it's a wise move by D* to pay the NFL for ST exclusive rights becuase I know many people that subscribed to D* over E* and Cable just to have the ST. Brings in more business have exclusive rights.

I don't necessarily agree that D* would have more programming if the ST was shared with competitors. They would still nee the space to offer it to D* customers. It's not like if the ST is no longer a D* exclusive packages that they would drop it and use the bandwidth for other purposes. Or am I off the mark. I'm no business guy, just a satellite designer.

png12977
08-19-2005, 12:33 PM
they have the bandwidth for more HD content, they just aren't utilizing it. I know HBOHD and ShowtimeHD each have 2 channels taking up bandwith. like 509 and 91 i think are the same thing.

hoorta
08-20-2005, 12:22 AM
First, you answered your own question: the NFL, all about the money, sold to the highest bidder. That's why D* still has it. My equation pertains to D*, not the NFL.

As for the rest, you miss the mark. The original post said the FCC should have disallowed the deal; and that D* subscribers are being denied other HD content because the ST contract is exclusive. How the NFL negotiates is irrelevant to both points.

Well then my question is, just how D* managed to outbid TimeWarner, who has 10x D*s financial resources? Or you willing to agree that D* is using ST as a loss leader?

Secondly, I agree how the NFL negotiates is irrelevant. However, in the sake of consumerisim, I would hope the FCC will step in soon.

Fl_Gulfer
08-20-2005, 08:27 AM
They may be loosing money on ST but they make it up on Taxes.

6201jim
08-20-2005, 10:30 AM
First, you answered your own question: the NFL, all about the money, sold to the highest bidder. That's why D* still has it. My equation pertains to D*, not the NFL.

As for the rest, you miss the mark. The original post said the FCC should have disallowed the deal; and that D* subscribers are being denied other HD content because the ST contract is exclusive. How the NFL negotiates is irrelevant to both points.

D* is using ST as a loss leader. It is paying the NFL about $700 M per year for the package which work out to about $400-$500 per subscriber. The difference gets written off to marketing expenses or subscriber acquisition costs. That is how you build a mass market TV distribution service.
PS: the exclusivity of the ST deal that D* has with the NFL ends after 2005 (so I read). The cable operators would love to have the ST package, but the Networks (Fox, CBS, NBC, ESPN) used to have a contract clause which required a new ST service provider to negotiate an indeminity payment to them. This is because their audience will have been diminished by the cable operators selling the ST package. I don't know if this contract clause is still in effect. The cable operators walked away from an ST deal several years ago because the networks were asking for too much of an indeminity payment.
The bottom line here is this is not about "serving the public". It is all about building a profitable business, which is not something to be ashamed about.

spiderweber
08-20-2005, 11:27 AM
I think the contract was for 5 years and started in 2002. So there are a few more years left until D* pays even more money for it.

TooL
08-20-2005, 05:04 PM
Doesn't it also benefit the NFL by allowing all the sports bars to subscribe? I don't know if cable is run to every building like homes are - but I'm no expert :D

jpnuzzo
08-21-2005, 07:56 AM
Doesn't it also benefit the NFL by allowing all the sports bars to subscribe? I don't know if cable is run to every building like homes are - but I'm no expert :D

Many sports bars subscribe, but it's not the same deal as residential subscribers. They pay a good deal more, in the same manner they would pay more for a cable PPV sports event (like ppv boxing).

jpnuzzo
08-21-2005, 08:03 AM
D* is using ST as a loss leader. ....
The bottom line here is this is not about "serving the public". It is all about building a profitable business, which is not something to be ashamed about.

Whether it's a loss leader doesn't matter to me, or even really apply to the original post (ST allows D* to avoid adding HD content; and the FCC should intervene).

I completely agree with your point about building a business, and that it's not shameful.

Personally, I think it's far too much fuss over ESPN2-HD and TNT-HD.

ESPN2-HD is only going to show the second-rate events that don't make it to ESPN-HD. Aside from that, it's a lot of upscaled 4x3 programming with sidebars. Big deal.

TNT-HD is showing a ton of old movies and shows (like the overrated VOOM channels), along with some NBA games. Big deal.

borromini
08-21-2005, 08:10 AM
I think the contract was for 5 years and started in 2002. So there are a few more years left until D* pays even more money for it.http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/aboutus/headline.dsp?id=11_08_2004B

According to the link above, they have exclusive rights thru 2010 so it's actually 5 more years before cable and Dish have a shot at it.

borromini
08-21-2005, 08:17 AM
...ESPN2-HD is only going to show the second-rate events that don't make it to ESPN-HD. Aside from that, it's a lot of upscaled 4x3 programming with sidebars. Big deal.
... That's not entirely true, if you're a college football and basketball fan, ESPN2-HD is offering some compelling matchups that rival with ESPN-HD (see their TV schedule on ESPN.com) These events are shot with the same quality HD equipment that's used by ESPN-HD. Granted that's not the majority of the broadcast content, but the same can be said for ESPN-HD with the exception of Sportscenter in HD and a few original programs.

jpnuzzo
08-21-2005, 08:18 AM
Well then my question is, just how D* managed to outbid TimeWarner, who has 10x D*s financial resources? Or you willing to agree that D* is using ST as a loss leader?

Secondly, I agree how the NFL negotiates is irrelevant. However, in the sake of consumerisim, I would hope the FCC will step in soon.

Whether D* outbid anybody is irrelevant, and so is whether it's a loss leader. The original post argued that D* uses ST to avoid adding HD content; and that the FCC should intervene to make ST non-exclusive.

The NFL can decide how it wants to sell its games. The FCC has no jurisdiction in matters of exclusivity.

If the NFL chose to remove free OTA broadcast entirely, and showed all games on a ppv or exclusive-subscription basis, the FCC would be powerless to intervene.

For that matter: the NFL could choose to have its games shown live only in movie theaters, none on tv at all, and the FCC could not intervene.