If Dish charges $1.99 per network, how much would your programming cost?
- Thread starter Lue
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 64
- Views 9K
I would hate this because there are so many channels that I really like but only watch a couple times a month. I'd hate to be faced with the decision of picking and choosing when I get everything I want in one package now. There are about 30 channels that I would really want and another 10 that I would like to keep but not pay extra for.
The problem is it will vary greatly for everyone. A family of four will probably need some of everything and the current bundling probably satisfies that as opposed to ala cart.
Personally, we watch about 4 channels regularly at any one time depending on the time of the year. During football season, ESPN, ESPN 2, NFL, FSN will get viewed, the rest of the year hardly ever. When Speed becomes FS1, it will probably be viewed as some Big 12 football will be there instead of FX this year.
TNT, USA, History and A/E are only viewed for about 6-10 weeks at a time depending on which series are in new seasons. BBC America is probably the only channel that gets viewed year round and possibly HGTV, but it is more background just to have something on.
Personally, we watch about 4 channels regularly at any one time depending on the time of the year. During football season, ESPN, ESPN 2, NFL, FSN will get viewed, the rest of the year hardly ever. When Speed becomes FS1, it will probably be viewed as some Big 12 football will be there instead of FX this year.
TNT, USA, History and A/E are only viewed for about 6-10 weeks at a time depending on which series are in new seasons. BBC America is probably the only channel that gets viewed year round and possibly HGTV, but it is more background just to have something on.
If you could add and drop channels whenever you wanted without penalty then it wouldn't be bad. Not sure how that would work though.
I watch a large number of channels but only one or two series on them. I'd be better off paying $1.99 per series.
Im on the 120 for $49, if I paid $1.99 for every channel I record, Id be over that. The only loss I had going to here was BBCA, and Ill grab that in other methods 
Im fine paying Dish $49 for what I get, its the hardware cost that pisses me off a little.
Im fine paying Dish $49 for what I get, its the hardware cost that pisses me off a little.
It would be less than $25 in our house...Nat Geo, Discovery, Tlc, History, A & E, H2, Fox News, and a few others.
Let's see.
Comedy
BBC America
Food
USA
TNT
Tennis
4x locals
$20. Occasionally more as I add some for special events. Like NBC channels during the Olympics and ESPN during Wimbledon and the US Open.
Comedy
BBC America
Food
USA
TNT
Tennis
4x locals
$20. Occasionally more as I add some for special events. Like NBC channels during the Olympics and ESPN during Wimbledon and the US Open.
yep. especially when you own and maintain your own equipment. the DVR fee is asinine (function of the box- look at the 211k). it does make sense for receivers like the hopper that have PTAT and other advanced features, though. it's only a matter of time before they say, well Tivo charges for a guide, we should too.
we are real close to ditching the 722 and getting 2 more 211k receivers. bill will stay the same, but then we will have hd-dvrs on 3 tvs.
The problem is that everyone's needs are different. Some people only watch a few channels while others like big families would need a big package to satisfy those families' needs. To me a TV provider would have to provide both big TV packages AND a la carte options (as many as possible) in order to satisfy everybody and retain as many customers as possible. I'll refer you to Bell's fiber TV packages in Quebec, Canada as an example.
http://fibetv.bell.ca/global/resources/pdf/fibe-tv-qc-en.pdf?v=20130212
To me, if a TV provider in the U.S. can provide options similar to what that PDF shows at reasonable prices, I would think that TV provider wouldn't have to worry as much about losing customers. Just my 2 cents.
http://fibetv.bell.ca/global/resources/pdf/fibe-tv-qc-en.pdf?v=20130212
To me, if a TV provider in the U.S. can provide options similar to what that PDF shows at reasonable prices, I would think that TV provider wouldn't have to worry as much about losing customers. Just my 2 cents.
Sports Is the Basket Buster
You would not get many if any sports channels at $1.99 each unless beer pong qualifies as a sport. The wholesale cost of ESPN is currently $5.00+. ESPN has 100 million paying subscribers. For them to continue paying the leagues for the rights to various events, ESPN would need to charge HBO type prices. Figure $15 - $20 a month for three or four ESPN channels.
Right now the non sports watchers are subsidizing the rate for ESPN and the other sports channels for those of us that do watch.
Before you know it the Super Bowl will be a $49.95 PPV event.
You would not get many if any sports channels at $1.99 each unless beer pong qualifies as a sport. The wholesale cost of ESPN is currently $5.00+. ESPN has 100 million paying subscribers. For them to continue paying the leagues for the rights to various events, ESPN would need to charge HBO type prices. Figure $15 - $20 a month for three or four ESPN channels.
Right now the non sports watchers are subsidizing the rate for ESPN and the other sports channels for those of us that do watch.
Before you know it the Super Bowl will be a $49.95 PPV event.
You guys realize if they did this, the companies that own television networks would respond by spreading programming out over a zillion networks to force you to subscribe to all of them, right?
Instead of having most of your home team's baseball games on one channel, they'll put twenty games each on eight different channels. Instead of having a 24 hour news network, they'll put news on different channels at different times of day. You like CSI and it's spin-offs? Prepare to have each CSI show be on a different channel. I can see where that kind of system would go, and it might not be pretty. You could wind up paying more for less, and whatever it cost, it'd be a lot less convenient to find the programming you're looking.
Instead of having most of your home team's baseball games on one channel, they'll put twenty games each on eight different channels. Instead of having a 24 hour news network, they'll put news on different channels at different times of day. You like CSI and it's spin-offs? Prepare to have each CSI show be on a different channel. I can see where that kind of system would go, and it might not be pretty. You could wind up paying more for less, and whatever it cost, it'd be a lot less convenient to find the programming you're looking.
You mean like they do now? FX is splitting into two channels, one for action and one for comedy. *slams head against wall*
