You must be a comedian...
I dont think I should have to pay for OWN, DIY, Cooking, etc...
Thank You Charlie.
- Thread starter Suppafreak
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 121
- Views 18K
You must be a comedian...
I dont think I should have to pay for OWN, DIY, Cooking, etc...
Sometimes...
If you don't want them I don't think you should either...
RECAP
You quoted my reference to this one channel. Your comment about sports fans going out to the bars to watch games is just retarded, I get the troll reference now.
I've never seen more subs whine about sports than dish network customers.
I've never seen more subs whine about sports than dish network customers.
I don't see why you don't understand that your argument applies to every channel. Not everyone watches sports, sure. Not everyone watches news either. Or women's channels. Or children's channels (I don't even have children). Or nature channels. Or shopping channels. Or anything channels. You guys are just singling out sports to exclude and put on a premium tier because sports happens to be one of the most popular (and thus costly) things you don't like.
Wrestling is, of course, fake, but it's half a sport (in the sense that it's athletic and involves competitions, albeit staged ones with pre-determined outcomes), and it's their highest rated program most weeks. SpikeTV has their own wrestling. SyFy has wrestling. So even the top rated non-sports channels are using quasi-sports content to increase their ratings. TNT and TBS air real (non-wrestling non-fake) sports. It's hard to even find many popular networks that don't air sports or wrestling or something akin to a sport- Why? Because people want to watch sports, and it's content you can't get in other places, many times.
I like Royal Pains, which airs on USA Network. I get the DVDs from Netflix when they come out. I don't even watch it on the channel itself. Weekly appointment viewing for television programs is no longer really something I do very often- especially with so many reruns and pre-emptions, and long breaks between new episodes. Every year it seems like shows make fewer and fewer new episodes. I'd rather just catch them via DVD rental later with no commercials and relatively near each other in time. Especially true with British shows like Dr. Who where you might get 10 new episodes a year if you're lucky (Though, to be fair, that's always been the case with British shows- and I love Dr. Who, but I generally watch it on DVD, too). So, I like these shows that Dish airs, but I almost never watch them on Dish, so where's the value in that for me? I've got Dish for sports and news, and everything else is just in the category of "Nice, but not why I pay the bill.". Might be different if I had a DVR, I guess... maybe.
Really? Am I understanding you right? Are you saying "Wouldn't it be easier for sports fans to leave their homes and find a seedy bar to pay for overpriced beer on an uncomfortable bar stool several times a week to catch sports than watch them on their couch?"? That'd cost a fortune and be extremely inconvenient and aggravating, especially to people who have any sort of social anxiety or don't like noise. And what about when you just want to catch a little bit of the game between other activities? Or play with your dog while watching? Or cook dinner? Or get stuff done on the computer?
I actually do know a sports fan who married a woman who didn't want a TV in the house. He spent so much time and money at bars and imposing on friends that she agreed to get a TV and a cable package in no time. Most people don't want to become a modern-day version of Norm from Cheers. Heck, most people can't afford to be Norm.
Minor league baseball? Eh, pass. I want to watch major league games from my home team, which aren't available streaming in any part of their extended home region, which I happen to live in. Ditto NFL and NHL games (Or the latter ever get that lockout settled). Granted, some of the college football and basketball from my favorite team is available streaming- some of it.
Same applies to all those niche channels, shopping channels, etc that sports fans NEVER watch but are forced to fund.
You are in a roundabout way advocating a la carte programming.
Thing is, I am not the only one who has said the sports channels should be separate. But, I do agree with your sentiment where channels in general are concerned. There are a lot of channels that I don't watch, but in many cases, the sports channels carry a higher per subscriber fee than others. I am willing to bet that most Dish subscribers watch movies, but don't think everyone should be forced to subscribe to all the premium movie packages.
None of the channels you mentioned cost as much as say ESPN. So to your point, you can see sporting events, but to see the ones you want, shouldn't you have to pay a premium for that?
I won't argue about content. History was one of my favorite channels and I won't watch it anymore. Pay TV is actually getting to the point where it makes more sense to either stream the shows you want and/or wait for the DVD. At the same time, adding more sports channels that some don't want to pay for does not make sense.
Aahh, yes. The amenities you can't find in a seedy bar. But, you wouldn't miss a game, and I wouldn't have to pay for you to play with your dog.
MiLB may not be for everyone. But I would gladly pay for an MiLB channel if I could watch the team from back home play without having to travel 900 miles.
You can believe that if you choose to do so. Without the ad revenue generated by sports programming, pay tv would be more expensive and largely out of reach of most Americans.
Like the OP said. Reruns of Two and A Half Men or The Golden Girls do not generate billions of dollars. They don't generate thousands of dollars.
Sports programming essentially subsidizes most non sports programming.
Premium movie channels are self sustaining. The 4 networks barely stay above water. That is why the managements are always looking at ratings. Anything shaky and the show gets cancelled.
it is what it is.
I detect a particular vitriol against sports fans and sports programming. As though these people believe they are being forced to deal with activities the despise.
Well just not liking something does not make it the demon nor criminal.
Look, anyone who wants an exclusive type programming on their pay TV system, can lobby all they wish for a la carte.
Wouldn't it be easier for sports fans to go to sports bars to watch live sporting events? ..That is a hostile question.
Whyt the hell should I or any other sports fan be forced to go to a tavern to watch our favorite sport or team. Not everyone drinks. Not everyone even likes going to bars.
Your idea has the holding capacity of a sieve.
Now, since sports programming is going nowhere, I submit it is YOU who has the problem. So why can't you just go to a vegan restaurant so you can watch the Baby Channel?
I don't mind the troll reference because I know when and why Scott added it.
Well just be careful. You are coming dangerously close to hitting the border of Troll and becoming something much more highly disliked.
Just state your case and leave it at that.
That is so far from true. Most shows make more money in syndication than they did in their original runs, not to mention the ad revenue for the stations/channels that carry them
Last edited:
Also, there seems to be a huge disconnect between what some people value espn and by what the viewership says. If I remember correctly USA is the most watched cable channel and the national channels beat everything else out easily. I get it man, I love sports but lets be honest the price of admission is too high now and it is spiraling out of control thanks to the die hard fans.
Fatman, your post made me remember in the long ago before time, when the Red Sox where on Channel 38 - seen on cable (geez I even remember their "theme song") and then NESN came along. We (my family when I was growing up) were amazed and somewhat irritated that we would have to PAY to see our beloved Sox. I believe it might have been an additional $10.00 - back then that was a lot. I then moved to a city where NESN was "included" in the cable package, and not an a la carte. I'm sure my bill was higher for the "inclusion" Then I moved back to my hometown and by then it was packaged in with the rest of the channels. But yes now I would still pay extra if I wanted to watch them but not the Celtics. But my Dad would rather watch the Celtics, he has Cable which carries the CSN. I think he would pay for the Celtics and not the Red Sox. I do think the providers try to give most people what they want. We are all not going to be happy all the time !
Last edited:
Does anyone here read this and just see the same old complaints that are in about 50 other threads? One side says I hate sports and don't want to pay for it. The other side says I hate the girly and reality shows and don't want to pay for them. A la carte would be too expensive and making individual packages for each genre would get confusing. How in the world could Dish possibly offer everyone what they want at one affordable price? I know! Offer a mixture of all the channels in a just a few easy to understand packages so everyone can get the channels they want for a lower cost.
I think we need to look at the history of pay TV here. As TV got more and more popular people started demanding more and more channels. They all want these channels and they want them all in on package for a reasonable price. Now it's gotten to the point where there are so many niche channels out there that people are overwhelmed by it. With all of these channels comes some added cost.
Too me, the way TV providers have things packaged now is the best way to provide all of the most popular channels to the majority of people in an affordable way.
I think we need to look at the history of pay TV here. As TV got more and more popular people started demanding more and more channels. They all want these channels and they want them all in on package for a reasonable price. Now it's gotten to the point where there are so many niche channels out there that people are overwhelmed by it. With all of these channels comes some added cost.
Too me, the way TV providers have things packaged now is the best way to provide all of the most popular channels to the majority of people in an affordable way.
