Dish HD vs Disney (DISH sort of won...)

[Scherrman]

Well I can't say for sure that Dish would lower fees if they dropped ESPN but I have never seen any provider lower their price of any package at any time. Now I could see them restructure their packages and possibly make a package that was slightly smaller with lower costs.

The reason I side so much with the bundled packages is because there are a lot of customers out there that just want to be able to have a wide variety of channels for an affordable price. That variety of channels has to include some sports. The top 120 provides just about every major channel that the average customer wants and Dish tries to keep it at an affordable price. If you get rid of the ESPNs then how does the average person get to watch some of the sports they want, they may not be able to afford to pay the extra fee for it a la carte.

The mass public wants ESPN, ESPN2, Food Network, HGTV, TBS, TNT, USA, MTV, CNN, TWC, Discovery, History, Nickelodeon, Lifetime, Disney, SyFy, Comedy Central, AMC, A&E, E!, Fox News, Sirius Music and TV Land in no specific order. Not only do they want these channels but they want them at a price they can afford.

Now if the sports lovers need more sports channels they can go up to the next package and pay more for those channels.

 

[TheKrell]

Well I can't say for sure that Dish would lower fees if they dropped ESPN but I have never seen any provider lower their price of any package at any time.

Well, since we're in the Dish forum, let's stick with them. How about when they lost so many HD channels out of Platinum that they folded it into the HD add-on for the same $10? How about, later on, when they made HD free for life? How about when they changed Platinum to BB@home and all of a sudden we had DVDs by mail? OK, well, that last one was more services for the same price, and not an actual decrease. But you get the idea.

 

[Scherrman]

But you're talking add on packages that people have to pay more for on top of their regular programming. I'm thinking more in the lines of just the regular packages. I'm not against having packages without ESPN for a cheaper price for the sports haters but there still needs to be affordable packages for those who want a little bit of everything. It would be great if Dish had a way to offer multiple ways to choose your channels.

 

[osu1991]

But you're talking add on packages that people have to pay more for on top of their regular programming. I'm thinking more in the lines of just the regular packages. I'm not against having packages without ESPN for a cheaper price for the sports haters but there still needs to be affordable packages for those who want a little bit of everything. It would be great if Dish had a way to offer multiple ways to choose your channels.

You and I both know that, but the media conglomerates are not going to allow it, until someone takes a stand. I think that stand is coming with Dish and ESPN. ESPN may get removed for a short period of time, but I think in the end you will see ESPN remain in the base package and all the other ESPN channels get moved up a tier or two and/or moved to sports package.

 

[Scherrman]

I wouldn't see a problem with moving all ESPNs to either the AT200 or AT250 and leave ESPN in the AT120. That would allow everyone the ability to get the bigger events on the basic package and then the sports fans can pay more by going to the higher packages for the rest of the channels.

 

[satjay]

I wouldn't see a problem with moving all ESPNs to either the AT200 or AT250 and leave ESPN in the AT120. That would allow everyone the ability to get the bigger events on the basic package and then the sports fans can pay more by going to the higher packages for the rest of the channels.

That makes to much sense

It's a good idea

 

[HDRoberts]

I wouldn't see a problem with moving all ESPNs to either the AT200 or AT250 and leave ESPN in the AT120. That would allow everyone the ability to get the bigger events on the basic package and then the sports fans can pay more by going to the higher packages for the rest of the channels.

There are 2 problems with that. 1) Disney insists we ALL get ESPN. 2) What if I want an AT200 or AT250 level channel? For me, BBC America is a must have. But it isn't in lower packs.

To me, the best solution is the Canada style theme packs. One general pack, with TNT, TBS, etc, a sports pack or two, a kids pack, an educational pack, and so on. And maybe, much as there are discounts for multiple premiums, a discount for multiple packs.

 

[Scherrman]

There are 2 problems with that. 1) Disney insists we ALL get ESPN. 2) What if I want an AT200 or AT250 level channel? For me, BBC America is a must have. But it isn't in lower packs.

To me, the best solution is the Canada style theme packs. One general pack, with TNT, TBS, etc, a sports pack or two, a kids pack, an educational pack, and so on. And maybe, much as there are discounts for multiple premiums, a discount for multiple packs.

It's possible that may work but it depends on where they place each channel. You may end up paying more money to get all the channels you want and may have fewer channels then you do now. That strategy becomes a problem for those that like a variety of channels. They end up having to get one package that has a couple channels they want, then another package that has only one important channel then another package fot a channel the wife wants. All of a sudden you have a handfull of different packages that still have plenty of channels you don't watch and you are paying the same amount of money.

Now they are going to be a bunch of people that get lucky too. They may only have one major interest and all their favorite channels are in one or two packages. They get exactly what they want and save money. They will be very happy but the rest of Dish's customers get the shaft.

 

[HDRoberts]

It's possible that may work but it depends on where they place each channel. You may end up paying more money to get all the channels you want and may have fewer channels then you do now. That strategy becomes a problem for those that like a variety of channels. They end up having to get one package that has a couple channels they want, then another package that has only one important channel then another package fot a channel the wife wants. All of a sudden you have a handfull of different packages that still have plenty of channels you don't watch and you are paying the same amount of money.

Now they are going to be a bunch of people that get lucky too. They may only have one major interest and all their favorite channels are in one or two packages. They get exactly what they want and save money. They will be very happy but the rest of Dish's customers get the shaft.

So it's OK just to pick us in the latter group to overcharge (and somehow wrong for the former group to be simply charged based wanting to have everything)? And luck has nothing to do with it; it's just our interests are more focused. All I know, is the list of channels I don't watch (or wouldn't pay extra to watch) is much longer than the list of the ones I do watch. And the absolute worst part is the don't watch list has better than $10 contained in 4-5 sports channels.

Also, can you understand it's part of the principle of the thing? I hate that big dollars from my paycheck are going to overpaid athletes. I'd rather more of my TV dollars goes to the providers that entertain me. That, to me, is the real free market.

 

[mike123abc]

I would see a la carte more working like this: a base package of every cheap channel, lets say under 10-15 cents. Which would give quite a few channels. Then the other channels sold individually. It would also "encourage" channels to stay cheap, or they drop out of the base package and have a lot more to worry about.

 

[dare2be]

What if I want an AT200 or AT250 level channel? For me, BBC America is a must have. But it isn't in lower packs.

Now they are going to be a bunch of people that get lucky too. They may only have one major interest and all their favorite channels are in one or two packages. They get exactly what they want and save money. They will be very happy but the rest of Dish's customers get the shaft.

Which is why my idea of metered viewing would help in those situations. All non-premium channels would be available, and people can watch or not watch to their heart's (and wallet's) content. Have metered tiers based on total hours watched/recorded, up to an unlimited price similar to the AT250 or AEP price. Channels would get paid by actual viewership, restoring a more free-market condition.

 

[Scherrman]

I understand the principle of it and why it upsets you but the fact of the matter is, sports are king right now. Sports on TV is the most popular it has ever been and there is a high demand for it. As long as people are still crazy about watching sports and are willing to pay for it nothing will change. I know it affects the price for everyone whether you like to watch sports or not and that isn't fair to everyone.

I'd be curious to see how many people would need to have some sports channels in order to keep a pay TV provider. I would think there are more that prefer the provider that has some sports channels over the provider that didn't carry any sports at all. It would be great if someone started a pay TV service that offered a great selection of channels but didn't include any sports at all but I doubt any of the networks would allow them to carry their channels without the sports.

Does anyone know if any other provider offers a package without any sports channels other than Dish? Dish at least has the Smart pack available for a good price and has no sports.

 

[dare2be]

If sports are king right now, then sports channels would be able to flourish on their own and not on the extorted backs of everyone. Make all sports PPV if they are that viable. Then you'll see the disparity of what people are willing to pay and the over-inflated TV contracts that are skyrocketing.

 

[Scherrman]

If sports are king right now, then sports channels would be able to flourish on their own and not on the extorted backs of everyone. Make all sports PPV if they are that viable. Then you'll see the disparity of what people are willing to pay and the over-inflated TV contracts that are skyrocketing.

I actually think they can survive to a certain extent on their own. I never said they couldn't. The reason they are on the backs of everyone is because of the networks that own them. I don't think blaming sports and athletes is the right thing here, you need to be placing blame on the owners of the networks since they are the ones making the deciscions and shelling out the money.

 

[Scherrman]

So it's OK just to pick us in the latter group to overcharge (and somehow wrong for the former group to be simply charged based wanting to have everything)? And luck has nothing to do with it; it's just our interests are more focused. All I know, is the list of channels I don't watch (or wouldn't pay extra to watch) is much longer than the list of the ones I do watch. And the absolute worst part is the don't watch list has better than $10 contained in 4-5 sports channels.

Also, can you understand it's part of the principle of the thing? I hate that big dollars from my paycheck are going to overpaid athletes. I'd rather more of my TV dollars goes to the providers that entertain me. That, to me, is the real free market.

I also wanted to add that the providers that entertain you probably own a channel that carries some sports or some other channels that you dislike and don't want to pay for. I myself find the networks at blame for most of the high prices and package deals that most here do not like. I just think that the blame is being placed in the wrong direction.

 

[dare2be]

Oh, I agree most of the blame is in the hands of the channel owners, who have created an oligopolic, exclusive, anti-competitive market. It will take a bold move by a major provider like Dish or Direct (or both) to buck that trend (certainly not Comcast, since they are one of those conglomerate channel owners), or it will take a legislative rollback of the 1996 Telecom Act.

 

[Scherrman]

I would love to see Dish and DirecTV work together to get some leverage been then you'd have the argument of them creating a monopoly.

 

[osu1991]

There are 2 problems with that. 1) Disney insists we ALL get ESPN. 2) What if I want an AT200 or AT250 level channel? For me, BBC America is a must have. But it isn't in lower packs.

To me, the best solution is the Canada style theme packs. One general pack, with TNT, TBS, etc, a sports pack or two, a kids pack, an educational pack, and so on. And maybe, much as there are discounts for multiple premiums, a discount for multiple packs.

Cox tries those packs around here. BBCAmerica is of course stuck in a package with Lifetime, Bravo, Oxygen. They will get you either way, it just comes down to strategic placement within the packs.

 

[Laddyboy]

Does anyone know if any other provider offers a package without any sports channels other than Dish? Dish at least has the Smart pack available for a good price and has no sports.

Yes. Verizon Fios Select HD does not include sports.

http://www22.verizon.com/home/select-hd/

 

[Curtis0620]

I would see a la carte more working like this: a base package of every cheap channel, lets say under 10-15 cents. Which would give quite a few channels. Then the other channels sold individually. It would also "encourage" channels to stay cheap, or they drop out of the base package and have a lot more to worry about.

But ESPN would demand to be in the base package.