Thank You Charlie.

[bryus]

So, what did you do? Drop any form of pay television?

For two years I had no pay TV, I watched my Broncos games over antenna. But, no I would just stop watching. I watch a lot of shows on a lot of channels, but I refuse to pay extra for exclusive sports programming. If they can't run their league on all the money they get from tickets, concessions, merchandising, licencing, etc then they need to rethink their business or I'm out.

If you continue to support a team that won't allow it's fans to watch without paying extra, then you can't complain about the cost of your cable/satellite bill, because you are getting what you want.

See, I don't agree with the implication it seems like you're making that somehow the sports owners making big profits is bad while Dish making big profits is a-okay. What's the difference?

I didn't say there was a difference. I just questioned why all the anger was directed at the providers and none was directed at the teams. People complain that Dish won't carry YES, but how many people call the Yankees and complain to them? Why should everyone else subsidize one team's fans? I've heard that at least $5 of everyone's cable bill is going to ESPN. I only watch ESPN when the Broncos are on Monday Night, and then it's rebroadcasted on my local OTA station by league rules. I'd gladly drop all sports channels for a lower bill. But, Disney won't allow this they won't give the providers ESPN unless they take a dozen other channels and a dozen ESPNx channels that no one watches.

I'm glad Charlie is fighting back, rather than just caving in like every other provider.

 

[rapidturtle]

For many (granted not all) it is not what you describe, alot of people are either going to see they can pay less or not want to see it. Some people will not see any difference in the channels they get, or at least in HD, others will. More subscribers care about the PAC 12 (I don't) than the NY RSN's. For your situation you made the choice that fits you best apparently, for many it may not be the same, it may and often does cost more and you could lose channels. I would indeed lose some channels I watch, and some that won't be in HD. As but one example, I watch the NFLZ for very little money along with other sports included, could care less about Sunday Ticket and having to pay that to get the NFLZ. So no, Dish is not just pocketing the money I am getting things I can not with Direct TV and no question for less. Roku and HBOGO? Not with Direct TV, something we use all the time. There are other things that some just don't take into the equation, for some it might not matter, but for others they are getting something with Dish, for less.
In your case I might have switched to Direct TV to if I could not get the RSN's I watch - same several did leaving Direct TV to get the Pac12.

You guys bash the sports channels like they are the only ones making money. People like Oprah aren't giving away their content for free. I would love to do away with many channels also, but they are forced on me, just like sports channels are forced on non sports fans. I could do without the Oprah channel, cooking channels, lifetime, and a lot of others also, but I cant get rid of them just like you guys cant get rid of ESPN. My point is that D* having NY RSN's doesn't really seem to impact my bill. I am going to be paying about the same as I was with Dish when the discounts are over, so it just doesn't make sense to me, that my bill with Dish wasn't cheaper for less content.
As far as HBOGO, for me,(I know not everyone) there isn't a bigger waste of money than HBO. I just got done with my 3 month trial of all of the premiums, and can not justify paying that kind of money to watch old movies. I'd rather rent a new release for $1 from redbox than watch Fast Times at Ridgemont high on HBO, (it seemed like that movie and a dozen others were on 5 times a day)
Not really sure what you mean by Roku. Is that just for getting the shows that you like to watch when Dish decides to leverage you as a customer in their court room drama's, or their relentless pursuit to save their subs money by pulling channels for weeks at a time?

 

[Scherrman]

You guys bash the sports channels like they are the only ones making money. People like Oprah aren't giving away their content for free. I would love to do away with many channels also, but they are forced on me, just like sports channels are forced on non sports fans. I could do without the Oprah channel, cooking channels, lifetime, and a lot of others also, but I cant get rid of them just like you guys cant get rid of ESPN. My point is that D* having NY RSN's doesn't really seem to impact my bill. I am going to be paying about the same as I was with Dish when the discounts are over, so it just doesn't make sense to me, that my bill with Dish wasn't cheaper for less content.
As far as HBOGO, for me,(I know not everyone) there isn't a bigger waste of money than HBO. I just got done with my 3 month trial of all of the premiums, and can not justify paying that kind of money to watch old movies. I'd rather rent a new release for $1 from redbox than watch Fast Times at Ridgemont high on HBO, (it seemed like that movie and a dozen others were on 5 times a day)
Not really sure what you mean by Roku. Is that just for getting the shows that you like to watch when Dish decides to leverage you as a customer in their court room drama's, or their relentless pursuit to save their subs money by pulling channels for weeks at a time?

You don't know what a Roku player is?

 

[dare2be]

You guys bash the sports channels like they are the only ones making money. People like Oprah aren't giving away their content for free. I would love to do away with many channels also, but they are forced on me, just like sports channels are forced on non sports fans. I could do without the Oprah channel, cooking channels, lifetime, and a lot of others also, but I cant get rid of them just like you guys cant get rid of ESPN.

And you act like the money being made by the sports channels and the non-sports channels is equal. You get rid of the channels you mention, and that saves you about $2. You get rid of the top 3 sports channels, you save $10. There is a huge difference and your argument doesn't hold water.

 

[WTguy]

50% might be close to right, a cable tv professional says as much in this article.

http://articles.philly.com/2012-11-19/news/35187681_1_sports-channels-cable-tv-bill-college-sports

And this article about a proposed deal for the Dodgers rights should really fuel this never ending argument. (That is right, proposed 6-7 billion to Dodgers for 25 years' of rights. After just receiving 40 million/year on deal finishing next season.)

http://www.deadline.com/2012/11/exc...-for-25-years-were-out-if-not-done-by-nov-30/

 

[rapidturtle]

Pretty sure Roku is a streaming device. Not sure how it works with Dish though. I thought that is what they gave to people who lost AMC, so that customers could pay to watch what they thought they were already subscribed to, and paying for in the first place.

As far as sports channels being more expensive, what would happen if Dish dumped ESPN? I'm quite sure that there would be a mass exodus to other providers, and Dish would be no longer. ESPN is more popular, thus the higher cost. This argument really leads right to the whole ala cart debate, which isn't going to happen in the near future. Whats the difference if I want to dump channels that I don't watch, and save $2 a month, or you want to dump sports channels and save $7 a month? If you have the right not to pay for sports, then I should have the right not to pay for channels that I don't watch, regardless of how much money either one of us are saving.

 

[Scherrman]

It is a streaming device. It gave people access to Amazon Instant video so people could continue watching AMC shows on their TV in HD. It is so much more than that though. There are tons of apps that allow access to different content. As for benefits for Dish customers, if you subscribe to HBO on Dish you can use HBOgo to watch all kinds of HBO movies and series. I use it to watch Band of Brothers and Eastbound and Down.

 

[rapidturtle]

Aghh, I figured it was something like that. I just never really looked into it. I have Netflix on PS3, and my BR player. Pretty sure I can also stream through Amazon to both of those.
I do have to give kudos to Dish for giving the boxes away to you guys, and then giving you credits for the cost of the shows. That was pretty decent of them.

 

[Tampa8]

It's the gift that keeps on giving........

 

[KAB]

It's the gift that keeps on giving........

Even now that I am internet connected with the Hopper, it's still A LOT easier to access HBO GO with the Roku.

 

[elmafu69]

The video on demand stuff is hard to navigate.

 

[costanzas_wallet]

I'm a Blazers fan living in PA, so getting my games has always been a trick. I'll get a good (poor quality) stream online and at least get to catch most of the action, although this year I've nearly jumped at subbing to the League Pass on two occasions, and both times I've checked the League Pass channels and both times it wasn't on.

During the Free-View, the Blazers were playing in Philly .. blacked out. I am waiting for a good reason to drop the $180 for the package, but I keep getting very valid reasons not to.

 

[thechaz05]

Even now that I am internet connected with the Hopper, it's still A LOT easier to access HBO GO with the Roku.

Same here, if dish could switch the on demand hbo for hbogo directly on the hopper i would gladly use that. As it is though, it's faster and easier to use my roku.

Sent from my phone using SatelliteGuys sweet app

 

[KAB]

Same here, if dish could switch the on demand hbo for hbogo directly on the hopper i would gladly use that. As it is though, it's faster and easier to use my roku.

Sent from my phone using SatelliteGuys sweet app

So, as to put this thread title into MY perspective....THANK YOU CHARLIE for my Roku, and about another $150+ in considerations this year.

 

[Yespage]

And you act like the money being made by the sports channels and the non-sports channels is equal. You get rid of the channels you mention, and that saves you about $2. You get rid of the top 3 sports channels, you save $10. There is a huge difference and your argument doesn't hold water.

And there is one other tiny thing that most overlook. ESPN, NBC Sports, etc... become more expensive to carry because they overbid for broadcasting rights!

So in order for them to have exclusive broadcasting rights at contract amount records, we are expected to pay up the difference (both in subscriber fees and commercials). Those that watch it, and those that don't. And that is one of the largest flaws in the current system. If ESPN was a la carte, they'd have to actually be weary as to the ridiculous amounts of money they would bid for MNF or college sports. Some say we couldn't afford it. The reality is, ESPN would no longer be able to afford such ridiculous bids. But as things stand, ESPN is virtually "must carry" and can do whatever and put the bill on us.

 

[Tampa8]

Rather than start a new thread I'm reviving...

Note that Direct TV is now charging all new customers in the Lakers RSN DMA a $3 surcharge. This is the second instance of a sports surcharge, and no doubt current subscribers will eventually have to pay also perhaps when rates change next year. As with the TOP 120 with Dish, Direct does have a package with no RSN's, Entertainment Channel, that will now save you $7 over the that package with RSN's. But want the better packages in that DMA you will pay. You can begin to see just how much is paid for sports in the packages and as I posted quite sometime ago, this is just the begininng.

 

[KAB]

And as Scott has inferred, NY is next (for Direct).

 

[rkassl]

I want Charlie to use his money wisely to keep prices down and I feel he is doing a great job!

 

[Elkview]

I agree, thanks Charlie

 

[Barry Erick]

If you have never been in these talks or have been privy to them, I would keep an open mind. I've been there.