In the last several years DISH has bettered their packages. FX and Fox News were put into Top120 from Top 200. Just recently National Geographic was mved from Top 250 to Top 200. DISH Network has the best options over all their competitors when in comes to choices.
Dish really has it figured out...
- Thread starter whatusernamesareleft
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 59
- Views 6K
Move along....Its time for this one to be locked up, as its nothing but personal attacks. You guys must do this to everyone that has an issue with dish and make it into something bigger. Maybe shutdown the damn dish forum will that be better? But I bet YOU ALL that attacked me will be the complainers.
whatusernamesareleft, read or reread post 37 by KAB. That was my thought with my first post. You pretty much contradicted yourself or at least weakened your point when called Dish sleazy, yet in the same post say it would cost more to go somewhere else. The feeling after reading your post was that somehow Dish was pulling a fast one on it's customers.
What appears to be your objection is similar to the A La Carte debate. But when that comes up it is recognized everyone does it that way, and not a matter of it being sleazy or underhanded. It's business. I'm not saying it can't be changed, in fact the very company you called sleazy has been adding smaller packages of channels, allowing more choice I would say by far than any other provider.
I give you credit for at least coming back and posting a couple of times, where some just post something and never respond.
What appears to be your objection is similar to the A La Carte debate. But when that comes up it is recognized everyone does it that way, and not a matter of it being sleazy or underhanded. It's business. I'm not saying it can't be changed, in fact the very company you called sleazy has been adding smaller packages of channels, allowing more choice I would say by far than any other provider.
I give you credit for at least coming back and posting a couple of times, where some just post something and never respond.
Yeah I get it. A la carte would be great, but certain channels may not exist except for popular ones. I get it that its just business, but when I decide to cancel...Then thats just business!
Didn't see where anyone was attacking you. Your point is valid, but must people compare the number of positives to negatives and make a decision based on budget and needs.
It sounds like you may need to start doing like so many others and changing providers every couple of years to always have promotional pricing. Would do the same here, but wife and kids would mutiny, lol!
You are correct. Customers canceling is just business. Companies are prepared for that and expect it to happen. There is nothing wrong with you wanting to cancel in order to take advantage of other deals. It's best to de some research first to make sure they have what you want for the price you want. Make sure you know the final price in the long run. Most times Dish is cheaper in the end.
All we do here is try to make people understand how the TV business works. People come on here everyday complaining about things that they do not fully understand. If you want the low-down on which providers offer the best experience and how everything works, you've come to the right place. It's best to think of both sides of the story when talking about any issues here.
I don't see any attacks here either. We all have our complaints. As I stated, I don't understand why Versus is only on AT 250 and not on any Latino package (guess they figure there aren't many Latino hockey fans, they may be right). But, I've been with Directv and cable before and overall Dish is cheaper, offers most of what I want and I have HD at no extra charge. Balancing it all out that works for me. After you consider all factors maybe it doesn't work for you. I do think you get it that Dish (and the others) put certain channels that each of us would like in a higher tier, perhaps out of our reach. It just comes down to how much those channels are worth it for you. I can get by without Versus most of the hockey season until the finals. I watch my team's games on my RSN and am able to watch a bunch more games on NHL Network. I miss some games I want to see, but I can live with that. I'm basically waiting to see what Dish does. As others have said, they do sometimes move channels to lower tiers. It comes down to something not all of us have - patience.
What I don't understand is the pricing structure of the different tiers. For a particular network, a lower tier means more subscribers and potentially more viewers/higher ratings which would translate into potentially more network ad revenue. So the most popular networks should be in a bidding war to get their channels into a lower tier, almost to the point of paying the provider for the privilege instead of charging them, or at least charging them way less. This should cascade amongst all tiers to the point of the end consumer paying way less for all the programming tiers. Based on my thinking here, there should be downward pressure in subscription rates, instead of the reverse.
How most channels work is they charge the provider(Dish) per subscriber. So if a channel cost Dish $1 per subscriber and they put it in their Top 120 package Dish would have to pay about $14 million to that channel. In return Dish would have to raise the price of the Top 120 to cover their cost. What providers do is put that expensive channel in a higher package so there are fewer subscibers watching it and the ones that so watch it pay more for it. Now some channels are very expensive but Dish has them in the lower package because they are so popular that Dish couldn't afford not to(ESPN).
And I still say that is counter-intuitive to regular market forces. If the network charges a fixed amount per subscriber regardless of tier, then what is stopping them from saying, "ok, well if you're going to put our channel in a tier with only 5 million subscribers at $1 per subscriber, then we'll offer to charge only $.50 per subscriber if you put us in the 14 million subscriber tier." They get $2mil more in subscriber fees AND more ad revenue from higher ratings.
I contend that the consumer is being raked over the coals over these per subscriber charges by the networks. Remember back in the day, cable/satellite TV used to be about having few to no commercials compared to free broadcast TV. The channels/networks made the bulk of their money from subscription fees instead of ad revenue. Now, most networks, whether broadcast or subscription, have the same amount of commercial time in their programming, yet the subscription rates they charge continue to go up. If OTA broadcast networks can survive and prosper with mostly just network/local ad revenue, then the double-dipping of subscription fees and ad revenue by the other networks seems excessive.
Last edited:
I'm not sure why the networks make the decisions they do. I agree with you that if the networks lowered their cost they could be put in a lower tier for more people to see. I would think that Dish has to draw the line at some point as to how many channels they will carry in the lower package and still try to make some money. It's a pretty crazy business, TV service.
I think the original post makes a good point. Folks are trying to claim that what Dish is doing is the industry standard, but the fact is that if you go out and get cable's rough equivalent of 120+, you get Versus, you usually get MSNBC (Not in all markets anymore, but still the majority I'd say), and you get some other essentially "standard" channels that Dish pushes up to higher tiers. Cable has digital tiers and such with higher costs, too, but usually they are for fairly specialized channels or premium movie channels.
The closest thing to a standard channel the majority of cable lineups push to a higher tier is the NFL Network. And even that is fairly specialized -- a channel all about one particular league in one particular sport with only eight live games a year.
The closest thing to a standard channel the majority of cable lineups push to a higher tier is the NFL Network. And even that is fairly specialized -- a channel all about one particular league in one particular sport with only eight live games a year.
None of us truly know what the agreements were between Dish and the networks. Who really knows why a channel is where it is exactly? I just know that they have their reasons for it and they do it so they can make a profit. If they move one channel to a lower package then Dish either has to raise the price or get rid a another channel to make up for it. Looks like people are going to get upset regardless. This is just my understanding of the business though, I'm not an expert.
In general, Dish is cheaper, package to package, so maybe that is one reason why... they put a few channels, Versus, TCM, etc... in higher packages.
But they also have a quasi-monopoly. Why charge only 50 cents per subscriber at the 14 million tier when you can threaten to remove your slate of ten channels unless they pay $1 for the 14 million tier package for one of those ten channels.
I can't agree with your assessment because you left out the most important part. Those packages are generally higher priced than Dish 200. So maybe they have a couple of channels not in Dish 200, but you are paying for them. So if the thinking is they are giving you more channels for the same price, I do not agree at all. And I'm betting I can find channels Dish gives you at that price point that some others may not, just as perhaps they give you Versus and Dish does not. You can't pick one or two channels and point that out as proof. Maybe Dish includes more popular channels?
When I left Directv for Dish, one reason was because the 250 plan included the Encore slate of movie channels, Fox Soccer Channel, and Versus. I no longer would need to subscribe to the Sports Pack, as I did with Directv, and I'd get the movie channels to boot! I think Directv now has Encore available like Dish.
That's exactly what I was getting at. The M-word. The 1996 Telecomm Act has basically opened up the door for legalized extortion. A handful of super-conglomerates flexing their muscles to the detriment of the consumer.
It doesn't stop with entertainment. Our food supply, petroleum, medicine, retailers, etc, the list goes on & on. Entertainment is 1 of the least important IMO.
put me at #2, I have DirecTVs Ultimate package. It has certain channels my family likes that arent included in the other basic packages.
It makes sense for the providers to put certain channels in different packages, also like mentioned, alot has to do with the channel companies, each channel is charged different price usually. It is annoying, but I hardly can blame DirecTV or Dish or any provider.
Then on the other side, it is annoying when there are people on fixed incomes, i myself have a fixed income right now. I am luckly able to get extra packages like the NFLST thanks to monthly payments. If I had the money, which I hope to in the future, I would too probably subscribe to directvs highest package. I mean based on my bill and everything it is like 15 a month more that what I am paying now.
It makes sense for the providers to put certain channels in different packages, also like mentioned, alot has to do with the channel companies, each channel is charged different price usually. It is annoying, but I hardly can blame DirecTV or Dish or any provider.
Then on the other side, it is annoying when there are people on fixed incomes, i myself have a fixed income right now. I am luckly able to get extra packages like the NFLST thanks to monthly payments. If I had the money, which I hope to in the future, I would too probably subscribe to directvs highest package. I mean based on my bill and everything it is like 15 a month more that what I am paying now.
