And it now streams in HD on the computer. I gave up on Dish every adding Disney back in HD so I get my Disney shows off of Netflix.
Dish HD vs Disney (DISH sort of won...)
- Thread starter wingnut10
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 1K
- Views 219K
And it now streams in HD on the computer. I gave up on Dish every adding Disney back in HD so I get my Disney shows off of Netflix.
I reached my limit this weekend after having to watch two football games in SD on ESPNU. Called DISH and found that I am not under contract, then called Directv and scheduled my new install tomorrow. I sincerely hope those were the last football games I ever have to watch in crappy SD!!!!!
How about this - the question we have been wondering - the contract with ESPN/Dish was an 8 year contract that was signed back in 2005. So it does end this year.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...dish-case-of-giving-comcast-better-terms.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...dish-case-of-giving-comcast-better-terms.html
"The interesting part is whether ESPN will have to reveal publicly the payment it extracts from the cable and satellite companies to carry the network's sports programming. We noted in December that sports networks account for as much as half the cost of a cable subscription."
The star of the revolution and I say let them pay!!!!!
Dish has a good shot at winning this one. The carriage agreement ends sometime in 2013 so let the fireworks begin....
It doesn't mention anything about other Disney/Abc channels.Still,maybe this trial will lead to a settlement across the ESPN/Disney/ABC suite of channels.
I thought part of the issue was HD carriage rights to other Disney networks (with Disney ridiculously arguing that you have to pay twice for HD), and I don't see any of that mentioned in the press.
Either way, I hope ESPN gets a beatdown. I'm tired of subsidizing all you sports fans and it's time for payback.
Either way, I hope ESPN gets a beatdown. I'm tired of subsidizing all you sports fans and it's time for payback.
The basis of the the lawsuit on the other Disney channels was the Most Favored Nations Clause which is the claim in this case.
I'm sure us sports fans are subsidizing your channels too. We just don't complain about it as much.
Plenty of people pay for cable or satellite just for live sports. Just about everything else is available through streaming. Everyone is paying for channels they don't watch.That is just the way the TV business works. Before anyone brings up ala-carte, plenty of people have already shown why that won't actually save us money. It will just limit choice.
Its been proven on this forum that that's not the case.
"The interesting part is whether ESPN will have to reveal publicly the payment it extracts from the cable and satellite companies to carry the network's sports programming. We noted in December that sports networks account for as much as half the cost of a cable subscription."
Its been proven on this forum that that's not the case.
"The interesting part is whether ESPN will have to reveal publicly the payment it extracts from the cable and satellite companies to carry the network's sports programming. We noted in December that sports networks account for as much as half the cost of a cable subscription."
How is that proof of anything? If sports are as much as half of the cost of my television package the other half is paying for channels I don't need. Meaning, I'm subsidizing channels I don't watch just like you are.
By the way, when they throw "as much as" before a number it usually means it's less than that number.
Last edited:
That is true, but you are ignoring the asymmetry. I am paying a much bigger subsidy so that your sports programming is cheaper, than you are paying for me to get a subsidy on my non-sports programming.
