sick of disputes

Regardless, you are wrong to pin blame on Clinton. He was still a governor.

And you were wrong for blaming George H.W. Bush, he did what he could to save the consumer money. Now the networks are making record profits on top of record profits. It's obscene. Clinton did nothing to help , but he wasn't yet in office.
 
And you were wrong for blaming George H.W. Bush, he did what he could to save the consumer money. Now the networks are making record profits on top of record profits. It's obscene. Clinton did nothing to help , but he wasn't yet in office.
I did NOT blame HW. I stated, clearly, that it happened during his Administration before Clinton took office.. No need to carry this argument any further.
 
And you were wrong for blaming George H.W. Bush, he did what he could to save the consumer money. Now the networks are making record profits on top of record profits. It's obscene. Clinton did nothing to help , but he wasn't yet in office.
OK, I'm sorry, but I'm curious... why is it so hard to say "oops, I was wrong."?
 
  • Like
Reactions: KAB
This is like so many government actions. It takes 20 years for the problem to grow and grow. No one even thought much of this issue 8 years ago, now every day it is an ordeal to find out what station you've lost next. I have no problem with the cable channels charging whatever the market will bear, there is no good guy or bad guy in that debate. But the Broadcast Stations were always supposed to be for free for local viewers. The Senators have all cashed their checks and could care less now, and it will be hard to fight the major networks and broadcasters in order to change things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dare2be
Don't forget the 1996 deregulation that created the media monstrosities (and blurred the lines between broadcast and cable station owners) that gave them even more leverage in these negotiations. Before anyone goes off on a politial tangent, the vote was so lopsided that even if Clinton had vetoed it, it would have passed anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tampa8 and ChadT41
Comcast as a cable company would not be able to own Comcast sports networks as an example and Philly would be on Satellite.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dare2be
OK, every body that is throwing a hissy fit about the channels refusing carriage until Dish gives them their price.

Call Charlie and tell him you will pay whatever it costs to have all these channels, you don't care how much your bill goes up.

$10, $20, $50 per month, just to have no more disputes - how much are you willing to pay?
 
Everyone's situation is different. For me, DirecTV was actually cheaper.

Regular, non-promotional, every day prices:

DirecTV Choice Xtra all included 4 rooms - $118

Dish AT 250 - $90
Hopper3 DVR Fee - $15
(3) Joey fees - $21
Total - $126

Actually, after calculating the promo price with DTV and comparing that to the promo price I payed with Dish AND after factoring in the Dish ETF I STILL save nearly $600 in the first 2 years alone! So, in my case the decision was easy.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Well, I already know Hopper fees went from $7-15 in the past 5 years.

February 08 Top 250 was $54.99
It's now $89.99.

I don't know what the price was in 2011.

Samsung Galaxy S6 Active

Also since 2008, Dish has added quite a few new channels to the package. There is no free lunch. Back in 1999 when I got Dish, I had their biggest main pack for Dish 300 (119 bird), was AT40. , $20 a month,. All of these different channels up the cost, and many like ESPN is charging a fortune. If Dish sold all sports in a separate package, our price would be less for the package as Sports charges more than anything basic. So if you do the math, what we pay now for about 275 channels is not all that bad, adding inflation, and what the programmers charge. Dish still has a $19.95 package, the Welcome pack, if someone just wants basics.
Also in 1999, we only have the East/West Networks, before locals. I think the Super Stations were also offered then, but there were less channels so a lot less in disputes. No locals so no local TV station to have a dispute with.
Dish has come a long way since 1999. we all want more but do not like paying more. Adding more channels, we also have more disputes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sam_gordon
Ah, the DTV troll is back. Comparing Choice Xtra to AT250, no less.

Gee whiz! I wasn't making a standard, all-inclusive comparison of the packages. I said that in my case the cost is cheaper. AT250 and Choice Xtra are the lowest packages with each service that have all of the channels I want. That may not be true for you and that's fine. As I said, everyone's situation is different. YMMV.

HOWEVER

If you would prefer to compare the AT250 to Choice Ultimate DTV would still be $3 cheaper. But let's not let facts get in the way of a good debate.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I think the point is that Dish price increases are the same each year as everyone else so the perception is that the disputes are not truly saving anyone any money.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Exactly!

The Disputes save Dish money, as their fees to the programmers are less money as the fees you pay Dish either go up or remain the same.

If Dish saves a penny here or a Nickel there do you think they will NOT raise rates this year or provide a discount on the bill?
 
As been pointed out multiple times before, the disputes are not just about rates.
 
If you would prefer to compare the AT250 to Choice Ultimate DTV would still be $3 cheaper. But let's not let facts get in the way of a good debate.
I see you conveniently left out the itemization of DTV. So, let's let the facts get in the way:

DTV:
91.99 Premier
15 DVR
6.50 * 4 rooms (they still charge an equipment fee for the first TV, right?)
(do you have an RSN surcharge?)
Total: 132.99

DISH:
89.99 AT250
15 DVR
7 * 3 rooms (first room free)
Total: 125.99
 
  • Like
Reactions: STDog and Tampa8
If Dish sold all sports in a separate package, our price would be less for the package as Sports charges more than anything basic.

Sports are very popular. If they did this, that would mean a lot less viewers for a lot of the non sports channels, which would mean those channels would fold up and be no more. It's a two way street, and one of the reasons we haven't seen Ala carte yet.
Me personally, I would love this. Pay the fee on one T. V for my sports, and get the rest from Hulu and Netflix. I would love to not pay for lifetime, CNN, Fox news, Oprah's channel, etc....
 

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

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)