I say make a guy package. Hell I dont give a rats ass about shopping channels or man hater channels. Give me sports and guy channels like A&E, Military, History, TruTV and such
Dish HD vs Disney (DISH sort of won...)
- Thread starter wingnut10
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 1K
- Views 226K
-
Server Issues. We are very aware that there have been system issues the past few days. In troubleshooting the system, it has been determined that the issue is at our provider and is hardware related. As of 12:05 PM ET our provider has moved us to a new server.
Things seem to be running better on this new server. However in trying to diagnose the issue (before finding out it was a hardware issue) we made some system changes which we need to undo. So if you find any issues or errors please let us know in the Operations Center Forum.
Thank you for your patience! Sorry for the issue!
CLICK THE X IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER OF THE BOX TO DISMISS THIS MESSAGE
I say make a guy package. Hell I dont give a rats ass about shopping channels or man hater channels. Give me sports and guy channels like A&E, Military, History, TruTV and such
I wish to GOD that DISH would follow their LEAD in the industry. IF DISH did it, then DIRECTV would soon follow in order to compete. We would all WIN!!
dont both providers already have a plan that basically has just ESPN & ESPN2 in it and not other sports channels ?
I know Directv has Entertainment Package which only has ESPN & ESPN2 in it
I know Directv has Entertainment Package which only has ESPN & ESPN2 in it
I used to have espn on all the time, but in the last 4-5 years, I can do without it and the other sports channels for most of the year. When football starts is really the only time I watch anymore. I've slowly lost interest in Nascar, the NBA and MLB over the years and I can get by with what is shown OTA. If sports were separated from the base packages I would likely drop them from February thru August and then add them back. I know others would be different, but that is just me.
The difference, of course, is that there are fewer subs who only watch sports, and nothing else, than viewers who only watch non-sports, and no sports.
Also, there are far more non-sports channels than sports channels. Yet, if it's true that sports is responsible for half the cost, that is a huge disparity.
Where's the "nerd and PMS" free tier?
I'm sure I can add up the costs of the channels I don't watch and it would be well above the channels I do.
We are all subsidising others viewers habits.
Last edited:
Hate Paying for Cable? Here’s Why.
View attachment 85308
Wow look at the difference in price. So who subsidizing who......
This from 2010 and I am sure ESPN went up since then and that's for one ESPN.
You’ll find this particularly upsetting if you don’t watch sports. Because sports channels account for about 40 percent of cable fees.
Ok since you have a chart lets use real numbers even though it's from 2009. It also says Fox Sports Net without saying which one, but here are the numbers.
ESPN $4.08
Fox Sports Net 2.37
NFL Network 0.75
ESPN2 0.54
BTN 0.36
NHL Network 0.35
Versus(NBC Sports) 0.26
Golf 0.25
MLB Network 0.24
NBA TV 0.22
Speed 0.20
CBS Sports Network 0.19
ESPNews 0.17
ESPNU 0.16
Fox Soccer 0.16
Tennis 0.15
Fuel TV 0.14
Outdoor Channel 0.05
The Sportsman Channel 0.03
Total $10.67
Those are all of the sports channels included in the $74.99 AT250 pack in my area. I included BTN because it is a RSN here. I did not include channels like ESPN Classic, ESPN Deportes, Fox College Sports, and Fox Sports en Espanol because they are either not in AT250 or not carried by Dish.
Yes that is a significant chunk of our bill and it doesn't include Dish's markup. People would save money by not paying for them but maybe not as much as they think. I still say it goes both ways though. I can find at least $10.67 worth of channels on that list I would not pay for too. TV doesn't work that way though because the channels we do want would cost more if less people were paying for them.
Sports should be like Premium Movie channel packs. You should be able to add them if you want to pay extra for them.
Just like those without kids shouldn't be forced to have Nick and Disney channels, and those that don't like chick flicks shouldn't be forced to carry Lifetime. I do realize that the sports channels are the most expensive, but if you can drop them and save $10 a month, then shouldn't I have the choice of dropping some of the channels that I don't care for, and be able to save $5 a month. (Starting to sound like Ala Carte?)
First of, half the cost does not mean the other half is other channels. Don't forget, Dish has to pay for stuff like satellites, uplink centers, customer service staff, home equipment, and profit. All that other stuff goes into that other half. Half my bill goes to sports, probably only 10% of your bill goes to the couple of networks I watch. ESPN is $5+ by itself. Nevermind ESPN 2, ESPNU, ESPN Classic, not to mention the 3 RSNs I am forced to have. The most expensive channel I watch is TNT, which comes in at around a $1. Most others are $0.05-$0.35/month.
Second, I bet a lot more sports fans watch the other networks than non sports fans watch sports. It only is subsidizing if you don't watch. Me, it's been months since I tuned to any of my RSNs, and the only thing I have watched on ESPN in the last year is grand slam tennis (which I'd gladly do without to save $100/year plus).
I don't disagree. I'd drop kids channels and chick flicks, too. Of course, even then I doubt the savings would even add to $5/month.
Yet even so it is less than a quarter the cost of the most expensive national channel, ESPN.
I get why people who do not care for sports get all pissy on here about their Dish bills. I don't like having to pay for stuff I don't care for either. What about all the customers out there who want to have a variety of channels? We have plenty of customers who want the general popular channels and still want to be able to watch some sports but do not want to pay for an expensive ad-on. The way packages are now, a customer like that can get almost everything they want for one affordable cost. The only way to get a little bit of everything is to have it bundled.
I don't think people understand really how this works. A very good example is the resent TW, NFL network dispute. I am not sure how it ended up but this is how it works. Most people feel that if a group of channels is in a tier, and not al carte. it is better. But the company wants to be on the basic tier. NFL network wants say .35 cents per month for every sub that Time Warner has. 10 million Just throwing that out there. Not .65 cents per month to be in a sports Pak. Which anybody can opt out of. And only 2 million want. If say Dish or Time Warner says no way. The forums light up with where's my channels. If they say ok the forums light up with , The cost it too high. The main reason al carte is so had to get is that is not were any "channel" wants to be. There is no money in it for them, or should I say not enough. If they do agree, as soon as they get popular enough. There is a confrontation or another contract dispute and the cycle starts over. JMO Peace
Ok let's not exaggerate here. The chart says ESPN is $4.68 which is expensive. Where are you getting $5+.
That chart was from 2009 and the prices have increased over the years. Heres a link that shows what the average price for ESPN was in 2012. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/dish-network-takes-espn-trial-001418894.html It says $5.15 per sub.
