Thank You Charlie.

[zippyfrog]

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

This is amazing how expensive sports are getting - back to RSN's - currently FOX Sports pays $40 million per season for the Dodgers. Analysts thought the new contract was going to jump to $150 million per year. Now they are saying the offer is for $280 million per year!

 

[SQUEEZON]

Bunch of belly achers. Don't like it , don't need it. leave if you think you can do better! Ciao!

 

[ohioankev]

and FEARnet. i have gave up asking for it.

That's only because Charlie has the DISH hitsquad put on alert about you and your posting on facebook. *L* You really rattled their cages by spreading the word about FEARnet.

 

[The Fat Man]

Charlie fears Fear Net.

 

[Scherrman]

I seriously don't see a problem with how the packages are now. I know ESPN is expensive and is a sports channel but it is more than just showing games. Not only does it offer many different sports but it offers news and highlights. These are things that non sports lovers like to watch sometimes just to see what's going on and stay updated. I feel that at least ESPN and maybe ESPNnews should be in the basic package since there are so many people that want the channel even if they are not huge sports nuts.

Now, the rest of the channels are already in another package. To me, the AT200 is only good for sports. About the only channels the AT200 adds for customers in my region are the sports channels and it is also the reason why it is our most sold package. You can subscribe to the AT120 and get the most popular channels which includes your local channels, some news, some sports, some reality TV, some shopping and women's entertainment all for a reasonable price. If you want more sports then pay more to go to the AT200. In my area we get Comcast SportsNet for our regional channel and with the addition of WGN chicago fans are well covered. Then you also get the NFL, NHL, NBA networks along with SPEED. CBS sports and Golf Channel are also there.

If you ask me the AT200 is the sports add on package you are all asking for and if you need more yet you can add the multisports package. If the packages are so terrible now I challenge someone to start a company and try to offer programming the way you think it needs to be. I'm not saying your a la carte ideas are bad but I think you'll find it's too hard to keep everyone happy at the lowest cost you can. You'll find you can't get every channel you want to watch for the same price you are now, you would have to give up some channels in order to keep the cost to where you want it.

 

[rapidturtle]

My problem with it all, when I started with Dish, they had some of the NY RSN's, and as the years went by, I lost all of them. Why is Charlie the only one who leaves the negotiating table? Why didn't I receive a discount for the price of those channels?
I got fed up and went to D*. Of course I am paying a lot less as a new sub, but when my discounts are up, I'm not going to be paying any more than when I was with Dish. The funny thing is, not only do I have the RSN's now, but I didn't lose any of the other channels that I watch. Charlie isn't trying to save his sub's money by not having the RSN's. He is just trying to line his own pockets.

 

[Tampa8]

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.

 

[elmafu69]

Humans are marvelous creatures. So much intelligence and all they use it is for "me me me me" and cant use it to see that their own situation may not translate into other people, the vast majority of which have a completely different story.

 

[dare2be]

Humans are marvelous creatures. So much intelligence and all they use it is for "me me me me" and cant use it to see that their own situation may not translate into other people, the vast majority of which have a completely different story.

I beg to differ.

 

[Scherrman]

Humans are marvelous creatures. So much intelligence and all they use it is for "me me me me" and cant use it to see that their own situation may not translate into other people, the vast majority of which have a completely different story.

Like I said, the way packages are now allow everyone to have a good variety without paying too much. Granted, the ones that like to watch a larger variety of channels take most advantage of it but I really don't see a better way.

 

[bryus]

I used to watch the Rockies all summer long on my local independent station. Then, they moved to a different independent channel, then a RSN. Now, I have to pay extra to see the games. Now, I don't watch the games. I gave up on nearly all sports years ago because the price to be a fan is too high for me. I watch my Broncos games on network TV and that's it. If the NFL were to move off network TV, I'd stop watching them too.

The mega-millionaire owners are happy to use the cable/satellite providers as a funnel to suck money out of the pockets of non-millionaire fans. They do it by extorting the providers into paying for the channels under threats from a small number of die-hard fans. And, the best part is they get no flack, because all the anger is directed at the providers.

It's funny how so much of the discussion is how fans are being denied the right to watch their team's games by the cable/satellite providers. There was also a comment about Charlie "lining his pockets". What about the greedy team owners who demand a special channel at a higher price to line "their" pockets? The one denying you your games are the owners. They don't care about you, they only want your money. You're not a fan, you're a revenue source.

 

[elmafu69]

Like I said, the way packages are now allow everyone to have a good variety without paying too much. Granted, the ones that like to watch a larger variety of channels take most advantage of it but I really don't see a better way.

You are right. We each get channels we may not watch but pay less. A la carte would be a disaster.

 

[dare2be]

You are right. We each get channels we may not watch but pay less. A la carte would be a disaster.

Theme packs are not ala carte and would not be a disaster.

 

[HanoverPretzel]

I used to watch the Rockies all summer long on my local independent station. Then, they moved to a different independent channel, then a RSN. Now, I have to pay extra to see the games. Now, I don't watch the games. I gave up on nearly all sports years ago because the price to be a fan is too high for me. I watch my Broncos games on network TV and that's it. If the NFL were to move off network TV, I'd stop watching them too.

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

The mega-millionaire owners are happy to use the cable/satellite providers as a funnel to suck money out of the pockets of non-millionaire fans. They do it by extorting the providers into paying for the channels under threats from a small number of die-hard fans. And, the best part is they get no flack, because all the anger is directed at the providers.

It's funny how so much of the discussion is how fans are being denied the right to watch their team's games by the cable/satellite providers. There was also a comment about Charlie "lining his pockets". What about the greedy team owners who demand a special channel at a higher price to line "their" pockets? The one denying you your games are the owners. They don't care about you, they only want your money. You're not a fan, you're a revenue source.

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? Point is, as an end consumer, I have Dish to see sports, and if they can't continue provide that for me at a price I can afford, I'll find another provider who can, and if no one can do it, I won't pay any of them a dime for television. There is no way on God's green earth I'm going to fork over $60 or whatever for a package that doesn't have at least the majority of the games my favorite teams play. I'd just watch the DVDs Netflix sends me, and maybe add streaming from them or Hulu or something, and save a ton of money. The only truly significant value pay television gives me for all that extra dough that I couldn't duplicate for a lot less is sports and news. TV shows and movies are fine, but I usually am watching them on DVD through Netflix or free streaming from Hulu on my PC anyhow.

The leagues have handed the cable and satelite industry the keys to keeping everyone from cutting the cord- and it's the almost exclusive availability of live games of the local sports teams. You can't get that streaming for most teams and most leagues (Remember, I am talking about the local regional teams) and DVD wouldn't work because no one wants to watch a game from 6 months ago (Or very few people do). A show or a movie from 6 months ago, though, is another story, because it was never live to begin with- it's just as live then and it would have been 6 months before.

The Internet means anyone who drops local sports is signaling the end of their company in the long run, because the days of people having to go to cable and satellite to watch TV shows and movies is long over, it's just a question of when everyone realizes it. Sports is the glue that'll keep these companies around in the long run if the leagues continue to keep live local games off the Internet for the most part. Of course, if cable and satelite companies push them by dropping channels or not giving them good enough contracts, the leagues will start selling people's favorite teams' games direct to them online through a Roku or whatever, and that'll be that.

 

[dare2be]

The Internet means anyone who drops local sports is signaling the end of their company in the long run, because the days of people having to go to cable and satellite to watch TV shows and movies is long over, it's just a question of when everyone realizes it. Sports is the glue that'll keep these companies around in the long run if the leagues continue to keep live local games off the Internet for the most part. Of course, if cable and satelite companies push them by dropping channels or not giving them good enough contracts, the leagues will start selling people's favorite teams' games direct to them online through a Roku or whatever, and that'll be that.

The only way cable and satellite companies would push them by dropping channels is if they feel the pressure from their subscribers. If subscribers keep forking over the ever-increasing money for live sports coverage, then nothing will ever happen. FYI, I read somewhere that MLB is considering dropping the local blackout restrictions on their streaming package. If that is true, then it is up to us subscribers to jump on that and pressure the other leagues to do the same.

 

[HanoverPretzel]

FYI, I read somewhere that MLB is considering dropping the local blackout restrictions on their streaming package.

Would be interested in reading the article, if anyone can find it and has a link.

That would be an interesting way for them to go, though ultimately with many of the "big" games and playoff games on national cable networks, even an MLB, NHL, or NBA streaming package of local RSN games wouldn't necessarily enable cord cutting on it's own. It'd really have to be all the games. But it'd be a step in the direction of more consumer choice, which is probably a good thing. The only concern I'd have is that one day it might lead to there being no RSNs at all and instead be like "Want baseball? $250 a season in a lump sum" and the same with other sports, and many of us couldn't pay that, especially in lump sums, and especially for those interested in multiple sports. But if affordable, could be a good thing.

 

[The Fat Man]

It's interesting how a la carte is bashed around here. Most of us pay for high packages because of small group of channels. They claim that we'd pay the same for less. That's because of the whole sale mentality. It's like we all subscribe at Sam's Club prices, and if we dare to say we want to choose each item individually we'd pay more per channel. That's a crap situation. But it would kill off the excess crap out there. It will also put these sports franchises into perspective. No more forcing people to pay for lack luster teams. ESPN had no problem giving up on the NHL following the last lockout. Why? They felt people wouldn't watch based on the price they would paying. With a la carte that's what exactly would happen. People would tell these franchises what they think. When NESN was a la carte my father subscribed during Hockey Season and shut it off during Baseball season. So we watched the Bruins and didn't get the Red Sox.

 

[Scherrman]

Theme packs are not ala carte and would not be a disaster.

It would be a disaster. That's basically what Dish has for commercial accounts now. You probably think that Dish would have on package with every sports channel in it and one package with every eduacational channel and one with every news channel. I'd put money on that not happening. There would be multiple sports packages and there would be other channels split into other packages.

You would end up trying to put together your package and see the same problems happening. I'll take this package that has a bunch of channels I want but this other package has two channels I need to have. Great now I have to pay another $10 for a bunch of channels I don't want in order to get the two I want. By the time your all done with it you'll see that you're paying about the same for the same channels or mayber even fewer channels. I seriously don't think it will happen the way everyone wants it to happen. Take a look at Dish's commercial pacakges and see how crazy it really can be.

 

[Scherrman]

It's interesting how a la carte is bashed around here. Most of us pay for high packages because of small group of channels. They claim that we'd pay the same for less. That's because of the whole sale mentality. It's like we all subscribe at Sam's Club prices, and if we dare to say we want to choose each item individually we'd pay more per channel. That's a crap situation. But it would kill off the excess crap out there. It will also put these sports franchises into perspective. No more forcing people to pay for lack luster teams. ESPN had no problem giving up on the NHL following the last lockout. Why? They felt people wouldn't watch based on the price they would paying. With a la carte that's what exactly would happen. People would tell these franchises what they think. When NESN was a la carte my father subscribed during Hockey Season and shut it off during Baseball season. So we watched the Bruins and didn't get the Red Sox.

I don't bash a la carte because I think it's a dumb idea. In fact I think it would be great to have that much control over what I want to watch. I choose to be realistic here and understand that the way the networks run things now it will not happen and if it did happen you would not be happy with it. I think the way Dish has it now is really a pretty good system. They give you a lot of options with various packages and even allow for a little a la carte.

 

[empiretc]

I watch my Broncos games on network TV and that's it. If the NFL were to move off network TV, I'd stop watching them too.

RedZone channel + the games shown on CBS & FOX has been great the past few years. It was upsetting when they jacked up the price of the multi-sport pack to $9, but the 50% for six months promotion made it good.

We'll see what the price of the pack is next season, but overall, it is good and you get to see the highlights of your favorite out of market teams. Plus Monday & Thursday night games.