And you seem to have misunderstood the entire point of my post (while simultaneously quoting a single sentence of it without the surrounding context). Let me try to make it more clear. I would have no way to access my NBC station, via Dish, the single tv service provider I faithfully pay my $150 a month to, because the hopper doesn't have OTA support and it would no longer be provided via satellite. Now, obviously there is a multitude of other ways to get NBC programming that would cause me additional cost or effort, but that sort of defeats the purpose of being a subscriber. I could go buy a separate OTA receiver, I could tap into my neighbors cable line, I could record NBC on VHS tape at my friends house, I could buy a pair of binoculars and hope that the tv across the street is watching Sunday night football, or I could ask dish to refund the money I paid to upgrade to the hopper and give me back my 722. But none of these alternatives are an excuse for Dish to continue to eliminate programming that I continue to pay for.
All of this is just my opinion, and some folks here seem to believe that dish is trying to fight for the good of the universe and for freedom of ingenuity everywhere. I, however, continue to believe we're just a pawn for a company that seems to have at least twice as many disputes as any other tv service provider. I wonder why that could be?