Fox Sports Lands Golf's US Open

Tampa8

Supporting Founder - I'll stand up and say so
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 8, 2003
18,258
8,042
Tampa/Eastern Ct
I want people to get the programming they want. But this is way out of control, spreading some games (of all sports) here, some there, and making ME pay for all those channels. DISH needs to make a concerted effort to make them part of a separate package and/or A La Carte. Otherwise, start not carrying them.
 

Yespage

SatelliteGuys Master
Pub Member / Supporter
Feb 27, 2010
16,671
16,660
Ohio
I want people to get the programming they want. But this is way out of control, spreading some games (of all sports) here, some there, and making ME pay for all those channels. DISH needs to make a concerted effort to make them part of a separate package and/or A La Carte. Otherwise, start not carrying them.
Yeah. We now have to pay more to watch the exact same stuff we were paying less to see, but now we have more "choice". *sigh*
 

gadgtfreek

SatelliteGuys Master
May 29, 2006
22,105
865
Lower Alabama
At this point Id be happy with a lot of this stuff in Multisports pack. Ill gladly subscribe to that vs not getting it at all. That keeps the people on here happy that want sports banished so they can keep their OWN and Doc channels LOL
 

Mochuf

SatelliteGuys Pro
Feb 16, 2012
1,180
257
Michigan
At this point Id be happy with a lot of this stuff in Multisports pack. Ill gladly subscribe to that vs not getting it at all. That keeps the people on here happy that want sports banished so they can keep their OWN and Doc channels LOL

Hyperbole much?

Sure the proliferation of all channels is really getting out of hand. But like someone once pointed out, most non-sport channels cost cents extra, while sports channels cost dollars extra. The higher extra cost of sports channels makes putting them into their own package a cost effective alternative for the vast majority of pay-tv subscribers. Sorry about those people who don't want to take drugs to fall asleep and would rather watch golf to accomplish this. ;)
 

gadgtfreek

SatelliteGuys Master
May 29, 2006
22,105
865
Lower Alabama
At the end of the day, you want what you want and I want what i want. We both pay a bill, some more than others, but the sports fan opinion here is generally dismissed because "we cost too much". At the end of the day, I have a pretty high bill and I want my sports. One stance is no more important than the other, its just generally accepted around here to say "dump sports". Another common stance is "if you want sports you need to get Directv", which is also pure BS. Dish even knows that.

Regardless of opinion, sports is big business and people have to deal with it or get a cheaper package/cut the cable. On the other hand, if they split it out into an extra package (never gonna happen with ESPN), Id gladly pay too.

Now back to your "cents" comparison. My answer is Id gladly pick the 50-60 HD channels I never watch and dump them to pay for all all the ESPN's and FS1. See, this argument can never go anywhere, we have to accept that programming fee's are going up, sports is costly, and people have to subscribe to what their budget allows.

Dish doesnt need to give away the bank for sports, and FS1 and ESPN need to realize they can only charge so much and start working on some kinda of budget. Buying up all the sports coverage then expecting providers to pay for it is not a smart business plan.
 
Last edited:

osu1991

SatelliteGuys Master
Sep 4, 2004
10,192
2,598
Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
At the end of the day, you want what you want and I want what i want. We both pay a bill, some more than others, but the sports fan opinion here is generally dismissed because "we cost too much". At the end of the day, I have a pretty high bill and I want my sports. One stance is no more important than the other, its just generally accepted around here to say "dump sports". Another common stance is "if you want sports you need to get Directv", which is also pure BS. Dish even knows that.

Regardless of opinion, sports is big business and people have to deal with it or get a cheaper package/cut the cable. On the other hand, if they split it out into an extra package (never gonna happen with ESPN), Id gladly pay too.

Now back to your "cents" comparison. My answer is Id gladly pick the 50-60 HD channels I never watch and dump them to pay for all all the ESPN's and FS1. See, this argument can never go anywhere, we have to accept that programming fee's are going up, sports is costly, and people have to subscribe to what their budget allows.

Dish doesnt need to give away the bank for sports, and FS1 and ESPN need to realize they can only charge so much and start working on some kinda of budget. Buying up all the sports coverage then expecting providers to pay for it is not a smart business plan.

and just how is someone supposed to get a cheaper package, when the most expensive sport channels are required to be in the base packages?
 

Tampa8

Supporting Founder - I'll stand up and say so
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 8, 2003
18,258
8,042
Tampa/Eastern Ct
.......Now back to your "cents" comparison. My answer is Id gladly pick the 50-60 HD channels I never watch and dump them to pay for all all the ESPN's and FS1.........

So you do think they should be in a separate package because that would accomplish what you want, and what those who do not watch the expensive sports channels want.
 

Scherrman

SatelliteGuys Master
Supporting Founder
Mar 14, 2008
15,555
9,951
Eastern Iowa
If you put all the sports channels in one package how are people on fixed budgets able to get the most popular channels along with ESPN then. For a lot of people all they want is the AT120 because it has a little bit of everything including ESPN. If you take ESPN out of that package then they still have to pay $45 -$50 for the AT120 but then would have to pay at least $20 to get ESPN because it's packaged with a bunch of other sports channels.

Now, if you have the choice between the packages the way they are now and a cheaper package without sports then I can go for that.
 

king3pj

SatelliteGuys Master
Lifetime Supporter
Jun 7, 2009
9,469
1,730
Michigan
So you do think they should be in a separate package because that would accomplish what you want, and what those who do not watch the expensive sports channels want.

The thing is, it doesn't matter what we think or want. ESPN and Disney have too much leverage to let that happen. They aren't going to agree to a deal that takes ESPN from being a channel in just about every package on every provider to a sports pack only channel. All the Disney channels would be pulled from Dish before they would ever agree to that. Sports haters can deny it all they want but Dish does need Disney and they aren't going anywhere.

If they are pulled when the contract ends in the beginning of football season the customer reaction will be a lot nastier than the AMC dispute ever was. Dish would have been in a better position to pull ESPN at the beginning of the summer. The average American might not have noticed if they lost Sunday Night Baseball. The average American does watch NCAA Football and Monday Night Football though. The timing of the contract end date almost guarantees that ESPN won't be pulled and if it is it will be very short lived.
 

gadgtfreek

SatelliteGuys Master
May 29, 2006
22,105
865
Lower Alabama
So you do think they should be in a separate package because that would accomplish what you want, and what those who do not watch the expensive sports channels want.

No, I'm saying to all the folks that say they don't want sports, on the flip side Id gladly love Dish to remove those 50 HD channels I dont use from its service to pay for my sports. Either way of thinking is not realistic and selfish. Major sports channels with a high cost are not going to allow themselves to be stuck into a package with less revenue, and providers are not going to reduce other programming to pay for sports. Let's face it, the cost of sports coverage has to be covered by the entire sub group, to make the price bearable. If only 3 million (hypothetical number) people were paying for the ESPN's, the ones that actually use it, the price per sub would be ludicrous.

I did say I would not mind a seperate sports tier I could add, granted that aint ever gonna happen...
 

gadgtfreek

SatelliteGuys Master
May 29, 2006
22,105
865
Lower Alabama
If you put all the sports channels in one package how are people on fixed budgets able to get the most popular channels along with ESPN then. For a lot of people all they want is the AT120 because it has a little bit of everything including ESPN. If you take ESPN out of that package then they still have to pay $45 -$50 for the AT120 but then would have to pay at least $20 to get ESPN because it's packaged with a bunch of other sports channels.

Now, if you have the choice between the packages the way they are now and a cheaper package without sports then I can go for that.

Good point, never looked at it that way. The assumption is all sports fans are rich.
 

Scherrman

SatelliteGuys Master
Supporting Founder
Mar 14, 2008
15,555
9,951
Eastern Iowa
I get a lot of elderly couples that can't afford the larger packages but they still want to be able to watch some sports and they appreciate that there are some sports channels in the lower package.
 

Yespage

SatelliteGuys Master
Pub Member / Supporter
Feb 27, 2010
16,671
16,660
Ohio
At this point Id be happy with a lot of this stuff in Multisports pack. Ill gladly subscribe to that vs not getting it at all. That keeps the people on here happy that want sports banished so they can keep their OWN and Doc channels LOL
It'd be nice if they developed a two tier multi-sport pack, a simple sports (NBA, NHL, MLB channels, Golf) and a premium sports pack (NBC Sports, FS1, etc...).
and just how is someone supposed to get a cheaper package, when the most expensive sport channels are required to be in the base packages?
Latino Dos.
 

gadgtfreek

SatelliteGuys Master
May 29, 2006
22,105
865
Lower Alabama
At this point I'm all for whatever works and allows me to get the channels I want. I tire of the "I dont need that channel so drop it" view. Its not doing any of us any good, and realistically isn't gonna happen.

If Dish drops or adds a channel, keeps fee's the same or raises them, its gonna be because Dish wants to.
 

Yespage

SatelliteGuys Master
Pub Member / Supporter
Feb 27, 2010
16,671
16,660
Ohio
At this point I'm all for whatever works and allows me to get the channels I want. I tire of the "I dont need that channel so drop it" view. Its not doing any of us any good, and realistically isn't gonna happen.

If Dish drops or adds a channel, keeps fee's the same or raises them, its gonna be because Dish wants to.
Except Fox is the one breaking the rules. They have a contract for channels to provide. They are dissolving the channels and creating new channels with different programming... and want to charge Dish and the like more money for them. They are taking a modestly priced soccer channel that lost the majority of its programming and now want to slough off the remaining programming into a more expensive channel. Speak about taking lemons and making lemonade.
 

king3pj

SatelliteGuys Master
Lifetime Supporter
Jun 7, 2009
9,469
1,730
Michigan
The way I understand the contract, that was their right, and Dish signed it.

Secondly, after seeing more of what FS1 is planning, I want it.

And you will have it. Maybe not right away but if it isn't added before then it will be next time the Fox contracts come up for renewal. Similar to ESPN and Disney, Fox owns enough channels to throw their weight around. If Dish wants to keep Fox News, FX, etc... they will have to add the new Fox Sports channels too.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)