Since ESPN is behind most of the rate increases

[M Sparks]

No way would I trade ESPN for HBO. I like movies but there is probably only a couple movies a week I would watch on HBO. I watch ESPN every day.

That's exactly the point. You have the option to decide whether you want to pay for HBO. I'm forced to pay for ESPN if I want to see some other programming.

I do watch some sports on occasion, but they aren't Major League/big money sports, and they aren't worth $4 a month to me.

 

[liquidnw]

I dislike EPSN because they force people who don't want to watch their channel to subsidize it. If espn was optional they could offer probably two dozen more channels in the basic package. I don't care about sports and I would feel the same way if ESPN was a 24 hour opera channel.

I wonder how many people with basic would trade ESPN for HBO if offered the choice?

Once again thats the way current cable is layed out. I'm sure there are channels you watch that I would prefer not to have but thats the way it works. Some people might never watch cnn, fox news, discovery channel ,etc but they watch the espn channels and they can't get espn without those channels. All channels are cross subsidized. ESPN gets painted as the bad guy by cable cos because they are one of the few broadcasters that have them by the balls. All broadcasters are responsible for price increases as well as cable cos over charging in the first place. By the way although espn may charge 4 per month to cable cos, they also allow the cable companies ad time on those channel so the 3 bucks a month might end up being 3 or ever 2.50 yet the calbe co will still charge you 4 bucks a month on the cable bill. Now who is the one over charging?

 

[kb7oeb]

The ad thing is true of all the ad channels so other than comparing to hbo it kind of cancels out. But to compare in reverse HBO would probably be a lot cheaper per sub if it was in basic.

I am all for ala carte, I went through the channel list today and counted 5 channels I like enough to pay $2 a month for. Two of them are discovery channels in the 180 package. The other 3 are in AT60. None of them are worth the price of at60 let alone at180.

The current situation is anticompetitive, most of the basic channels including espn are worthless to me yet I still have to buy them no matter what provider I choose. The only choice I have is to vote with my wallet and not buy any of them. I am very thankfull that Dish offers the HD channels without requiring a basic package. I started out with USSB, and later with the more expensive directv until they no longer allowed HBO/Sho subs without total choice. If Dish ever follows I will probably go OTA only.

It's not even so much the actual price, its the principal. I have to buy a lot of stuff I don't want to get what I do want no matter the provider. The $2 price is based on the outdoor channel ala carte price.

To bring it back to ESPN they are kind of like Wal-Mart they have the power to get what they want, no provider will ever stand up to them, ESPN would probably rather go dark on an entire system forever then cave in to ala carte. Its kind of like how Wal-Mart and McDonald's will close a store if it tries to unionize since in the long run it will cost them more.

 

[Purogamer]

...I love when something bad happens to walmart...Zoning keeps them out, Illegal worker complaints, whatever...it has always put a smile on my face when I see them not get their way...

BTW, sometimes ESPN does do some really cool things...
http://www.satelliteguys.us/showthread.php?t=51322

 

[ravensong]

How can anyone hate ESPN, wtf do you watch?

Players are paid too much? Strap on some pads and play running back for a game and see how many days it takes you to get out of bed afterwards...

They provide incredible entertainment for hundreds of millions of people and do it while undergoing extraordinary physical pain. They deserve every penny they get.

I watch MOVIES and no sports or regular network crap. The less sports I have to pay for , the better.