I'm curious what people really think the prices of packages without sports in them would be. Do you think the current packages would drop $5, $10, $15....? I have no idea but I think it's not going to be as much as everyone thinks it would.
56% of viewers would drop ESPN
- Thread starter sam_gordon
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 241
- Views 14K
As it should be. Let true supply/demand and competition weed out the landscape.
I actually think it would be great for TV. Like you said, weed out some of the crap channels and get back to a shorter list of channels with quality programming. Niche channels would be online only and probably cost a premium.
I agree. The only way you're going to see packages at a reasonable price is if you get rid of a lot of channels. Need to go back to a top 60 or top 40 package. I really think people would love to see this again.
That lawsuit is hilarious. ESPN started streaming all of their content, which is stealing customers from the satellite and cable providers and now cries foul when those same providers decide not to force carry their content. "Boo hoo, I can steal from you but you can't steal from me, that's not fair! Boo-hoo." ESPN's business model. as currently constituted, is in trouble. Gee, maybe they should ask the people on Twitter that are currently deciding what their content is how they should restructure the business model. After all, the people on Twitter are running the network now.
They are streaming, but technically you still have to have ESPN in a pay tv provider subscription to have access to it, so if people follow the "rules" of the streaming process no pay tv customers are stolen. As far as I know of, there is no stand alone ESPN streaming option. Sling is the closest thing to one.That lawsuit is hilarious. ESPN started streaming all of their content, which is stealing customers from the satellite and cable providers and now cries foul when those same providers decide not to force carry their content. "Boo hoo, I can steal from you but you can't steal from me, that's not fair! Boo-hoo." ESPN's business model. as currently constituted, is in trouble. Gee, maybe they should ask the people on Twitter that are currently deciding what their content is how they should restructure the business model. After all, the people on Twitter are running the network now.
Doctor Who - BBC America
Flash, Arrow - CW
Star Wars Rebels and various Marvel Cartoons - DisneyXD
Walking Dead - AMC
The Librarians - TNT
Supergirl, Heroes Reborn, Agents of SHIELD, Gotham, Last Man Standing, etc - The Big 4 Networks
Hallmark - Happy Wife
Hallmark Movies - Happy Wife
Hopper Whole House DVR - This really is a big part of staying. For years I had channel modulaters on every Dish receiver so we could watch something recorded on the bedroom dvr in the living room. Every tv in house could tune to 40 for the Living Room DVR, 42 for M Bedroom DVR, etc. I now have a lot less cabling and equipment needed thanks to the hopper system. Can't wait for the Hopper 3.
And yes, I know that I can get most of the shows I watch on Netflix, but I don't choose to wait for the new seasons to get to Netflix.
I have bought every Doctor Who DVD/Blu-Ray that is available (That includes all DVDs since the original 1963 episodes) but I still watch the show when it airs so I don't have to wait.
The only sports that I watch are KC Chiefs and KC Royals games. The Chiefs games are all on the Networks. The Royals are the only thing I watch on a sports channel and that is one of the Fox Sports channel.
Most all of those shows can be had through Hulu plus or using the network app on roku (you must have some log in info of some sort) in current season. It does take a change in "how" you are used to watching though.
Not mine. I'm backfilling my collection of old and recent shows, many of which are not out on DVD or streamed anywhere.
Most Science channel shows, GSN classics, Boomerang (Looney Tunes), etc. are not available anywhere or are not completely available.
So I'm paying $75/mo for basically 10-20 channels my family watches.
Most Science channel shows, GSN classics, Boomerang (Looney Tunes), etc. are not available anywhere or are not completely available.
So I'm paying $75/mo for basically 10-20 channels my family watches.
the sports channels and their owners paying for TV rights to sporting events is the main reason why traditional paid TV is expensive now. it's also the reason for most contract disputes, and why people are sick of traditional paid TV and going with OTA/webstreaming/other as their way to watch TV to stick it to the greedy paid TV providers and the content providers who jack up the prices to cause the paid TV providers to do the same to help pay their content providing bills. and also getting shows from OTA with a antenna is still free as long as you buy the antenna or you already got one. also it's cheaper to pay Netflix, Hulu, Amazon and other services that stream TV shows that you would find on traditional paid TV as well as shows not on traditional paid TV.
if my internet choices were better and i was able to watch my shows via webstream then on traditional paid TV, i would be willing to cut the cord and get a Roku or Chromecast but my internet provider sucks and keeps going in and out at night more so then day time and it's got a 100 GB bandwidth cap and the options here in rural Hunt County/Campbell is well, not good at all as the best providers might be satellite and they have very low bandwidth caps, so pretty much stuck between Dish & DirecTV as my true choice of TV providers and i do have a antenna to get regular TV channels.
if my internet choices were better and i was able to watch my shows via webstream then on traditional paid TV, i would be willing to cut the cord and get a Roku or Chromecast but my internet provider sucks and keeps going in and out at night more so then day time and it's got a 100 GB bandwidth cap and the options here in rural Hunt County/Campbell is well, not good at all as the best providers might be satellite and they have very low bandwidth caps, so pretty much stuck between Dish & DirecTV as my true choice of TV providers and i do have a antenna to get regular TV channels.
Maybe. But crap like Viacom's silly channels and Fox News., etc. should also be ala carte. I don't watch any of the Viacom crap and I certainly won't watch Fox News. If we're going ala carte we need to go all the way,
Look, I don't like what ESPN charges, but then again I find myself watching them frequently. In fact, w/o sports I wouldn't subscribe to the rest of the channels.
Fox news is the #1 news network for a reason. I work for a cable provider and we sell dish too, but everyone wants fox.
But these channels you list don't cost as much as a premium movie pack.
ESPN does!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
Last report I saw was that FoxNews is the #1 cable network. Had higher ratings than ESPN or USA.
Okay here is a good one.
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/05/06/how-much-would-it-cost-to-get-your-favorite-channels-a-la-carte.html
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
I wouldn't doubt it. No one watches msnbc and very few watch cnn. People like oreilly, kelly, ect.
Last read, the average channel costs $0.76. Fox News just got $1.50, so is twice the average, still reasonably price. ESPN is $7 and still going up. I am ok with it being $7 too, but why not allow it in a sports package? Why does Disney make such a big stink about it being not in a sports pack? Fox News, being more expensive, also goes in the high tiered packages. ESPN demands to be carried in lower packages... Further being subsidized. Why? Because they know what their life span will be other wise.
