I am sure those who enjoy PBS and NPR appreciate your $1.50/year contribution.
56% of viewers would drop ESPN
- Thread starter sam_gordon
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 241
- Views 14K
I am sure those who enjoy PBS and NPR appreciate your $1.50/year contribution.
Since we're discussing a la carte and paying for channels we don't watch, I have a question. I've got about a thousand music channels on my package which I never listen to. Does DISH pay for these music channels? I can understand why DISH offers a variety of television programming in their packages, people have different tastes in what they watch. However, it seems to me that anyone who wants to listen to music has many other options instead of turning on their TV.
Just curious about that.
You don't understand their original intended purpose. Muzak, DMX and Music Choice were created as a way to pump audio into businesses. 20+ years ago what was the easiest way to get into the PA systems of millions of businesses nationwide? Sign carriage agreements with cable and satellite providers. The MSOs then used those channels as a way to advertise increased channel count for consumer accounts while providing businesses elevator music. When I listen to DMX on DirecTV or Music Choice on cable, I don't turn on the TV. I just turn on my AV Receiver to the correct HDMI Input and punch in the channel number I want to listen to. In the age of the internet, having a satellite dish to receive background music for a business is probably a little less relevant than it was 20 year ago, that's probably why DMX now brands themselves a 'sensory' or 'mood' company or whatever the hell the try to call themselves so that can get into more businesses so customers will 'feel' better and spend more $$$$.
That's still too much for that boring dreck. I'd rather have the money in my pocket then go to 'The Corporation for Public Broadcasting'.
Well, in honesty it probably is offset by *STOP DERAILING THE THREAD INTO POLITICS!!!!*
It has nothing to do with politics. For some reason, some people don't find sports entertaining and cry about paying for them even though they don't watch them. I find the stuck up, snooty, elitist, monotone nature of PBS and NPR to be boring as all hell and wish not to pay for them. We can't all get our way now, can we.
Keep in mind where the money is going...it is not the providers getting rich, or the content makers (espn had massive layoffs), it is the University athletic departments, professional sports owners, and the professional athlete...why Rutgers in Big 10?? Because it expands their TV revenue...how? Because big 10 network becomes part of a regional package...how does a major league baseball player make $30 million plus a year, because of the TV revenue...why do advertisers spend $millions per minute of a commercial...because people watch. In end, forcing only sports fans to pay to watch sports, 2 things happen 1) they pay more, or 2) they refuse to watch as much, advertisers then pay less, owners make less, athletes make less, and then they drop the cost. Basic supply and demand at work. However, with everyone paying, provides false demand. I like packages because I like sports and majority subsidize the cost.
Not to me there isn't. I get beyond zero value out of the $1.50/year. I watch ESPN daily and would be willing to pay more for the pleasure to do so.
Guys, alot of these comments we have allowed as in our opinion they deal with personal preference, or are used as a comparison as to why one is in a package versus another. However some have come close to being over the political boundary, as again as a reminder, politics is not allowed in the general forum.
We ask that you think before you post, and not make the staff have to interpret what you meant to say.
Thanks.
We ask that you think before you post, and not make the staff have to interpret what you meant to say.
Thanks.
I'm just saying if the vocal minority who cry about paying for sports have a right to whine about something, then so do I.
The great thing is non sports people have to option to cancel their subscriptions. I don't have the option to cancel my forced support of public TV & radio.
The great thing is non sports people have to option to cancel their subscriptions. I don't have the option to cancel my forced support of public TV & radio.
I don't understand why these discussions always turn political. For some reason it goes from sports channels to the news channels and then politics. This is one of the biggest reason I hat all news stations, they are tied way to closely to politics. This is wrong. News channels are to report the news and not spin things towards a specific political side or agenda. You can stick your political crap you-know-where or discuss it in The Pit where it's allowed and people want to see it talked about.
It may not be partisan politics, but what is and isn't in the Federal Budget is a political thing. I love talking politics, but the Scott guy who gives us lots of info on Dish and Sat and what not has a rule, which I try to abide by.
That isn't quite fair. I'd gladly pay $300 a year for EPL (and Cups) without Dish. The thing is the Networks make more money by making everyone pay, especially those that don't watch.
The problem with News Channels is that there is competition for eyeballs. So much like how The Learning Channel devolved, The Weather Channel devolved, History and Science devolved, so have News channels, because they want eyeballs watching. So they try to market their product to certain people. It really is terrible and it never helps. Very few people get into arguments over banal Bravo programming like they will about what MSNBC or FNC show.
Don't forget that a lot of people like a variety of channels or they have a family that has different interests in channels. Bundles like these are the only way for people to have such a large variety for an affordable price.
How many times have you seen a thread started on here because one of their favorite channels was in the top tier package and they had to pay more just to get it? They always complain how it should be included in the cheapest package.
How many times have you seen a thread started on here because one of their favorite channels was in the top tier package and they had to pay more just to get it? They always complain how it should be included in the cheapest package.
No one is saying to take away the bundles in place of ala carte. Choice is key.
My point was more in regards to "sports have no outlets". As I mentioned early in this thread, I am a sports fan and do watch ESPN. I do understand the point being made though. If it was the same price or even just a little more expensive, this would be a non discussion. It is just that this sports channel is demanding well well over the average channel cost. Even well over the average high cost for a channel. That is my point in this discussion. I am one of those that appreciates the bundle.
All those bundled channels you pay for but don't watch are maybe an average of 25 cents each. ESPN is around $8. That's HBO territory. ESPN should be treated as a premium. I don't mind paying 25 cents for something I don't watch if it allows me more choice due to bundling, but I do mind paying $8. I'm not forced to pay for HBO, so I shouldn't be forced to pay for ESPN in order to get the most basic level of service.
Again I fail to see how that is political. It's a fact and my opinion on media that I am forced to pay for with tax dollars that I have no use for.
I suppose in your mind me saying I'd rather drop my garbage off at the dumps on the other side of town myself then having the garbage truck pick it up every week and pay for it in my local taxes is some political taboo too?
