Is that a separate Regional Sports package, though, or is it their Regional Sports Fee? In other words, subscribers to those packages do not have the choice whether or not to drop those channels. They are automatically bundled into the package, but just itemized on the bill differently.
Yep. It seems that Dish's response to the RSNs demand of all subscribers or nothing, is to choose nothing. I'd rather the choice be left to the consumer in the form of optional separate packages. That day will come, but it'll take a while.
Not being a Directv customer I cannot answer your question . It was on an offer sent to me in the mail. I did not see a way to not take the Regional Sports Package.
It does accomplish one thing: it allows Directv (and Dish if they were to implement the same practice) to advertise a consistent price for the basic packages nationwide, while still charging customers in each region according to how expensive their particular channels actually are. This is something that Dish is going to struggle with next year when it is time to adjust the package prices, with so few regions still having RSN's. Therefore, it is harder to average out the cost of RSN's nationwide, and just charge everyone the average price like Dish has done in the past. Now, as I see it, Dish has three options:
I would almost agree with that, as long as "the same price" means no increase next year, as the cost increases to the other channels in the package would eat into that profit. As it is now, the current situation would be like if, back when Dish still did not have local channels in every market, they had forced the local channels into the package anyway, and everyone across the entire country had to pay the same price whether they could receive their local channels or not. Dish did not do that at that time (they waited until every market was covered with locals before forcing them into the basic packages, and even then, subscribers who had chosen not to receive the locals remained grandfathered at the lower no-locals rate) and they should not be doing that with the RSN's now. I even disagree with charging the same price for locals nationwide, regardless of market, as obviously some local markets are more expensive to carry than others. So, only the subscribers in those more expensive markets should have to pay the extra cost, instead of charging subscribers in the cheaper markets more than they would otherwise cost, in order to subsidize the more expensive local markets.
Not quite. There are subtle distinctions. Only the Fox Sports Net message has the stronger language that Dish is "no longer going to support this broken business model." (The NBC Sports Chicago message mentions the broken business model, but does not say anything about no longer supporting it. The Altitude message has been modified to remove the language about the broken business model altogether.) Only the NBC Sports Chicago and Altitude messages give phone numbers to "make your voice heard." There is no such contact information for Fox Sports Net. If Dish is no longer willing to use customers as pawns in the Fox Sports Net negotiations (getting us to contact the content provider to complain) then that would be a strong indication that there are no negotiations, at least not on Dish's part.
It might impact you indirectly, if the end result of the RSN disputes is to simply not increase the bill next year for the markets without RSN's, but rather add a surcharge to the few markets that still do have RSN's. Therefore, your bill would go up because you still have NESN. Granted, the surcharge would not be as high as it would be if Dish still carried NBC Sports Boston.
Yes and no. Because I personally subscribe to the flex pack, I'd simply remove the Regional Action Pack and call it a day.
Hmm... the cost of adding Google Assistant must have been really expensive then. I cannot think of any other improvements lately that would justify higher equipment fees.
dare2be agreed with Juan, though.You do realize that you're attempting to respond to Juan with logic?
Okay, so you were saying that they will go up in the reverse order? You were still agreeing that they will go up.did I?
you might want to re-read.
