I agree, and from the welcome pack all the way up, Dish is one of the few companies that has many different programing package combos to chose from to satisfy programing needs. One thing I also read on the site is I wish Dish carried channel etc...for example in 120 or 200 instead of just 250. The only problem with that is if all channels are available on each package I don't think you could keep those lower package prices anymore and what use is it to have different packages
Thank You Charlie.
- Thread starter Suppafreak
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 121
- Views 18K
People wanted more programming, not more channels. There is no excuse for a second History channel when all of that programming could easily fit on one channel. You just wouldn't have 3 or 4 hour blocks of Pawn Stars or American Pickers on any given night. That's just one example of the clutter and multiple RSN's in an area is another. There are more channels because these companies want more subscriber fees that those extra channels bring. They certainly aren't doing it for the viewers.
Annie61 said:Fatman, your post made me remember in the long ago before time, when the Red Sox where on Channel 38 - seen on cable (geez I even remember their "theme song") and then NESN came along. We (my family when I was growing up) were amazed and somewhat irritated that we would have to PAY to see our beloved Sox. I believe it might have been an additional $10.00 - back then that was a lot. I then moved to a city where NESN was "included" in the cable package, and not an a la carte. I'm sure my bill was higher for the "inclusion" Then I moved back to my hometown and by then it was packaged in with the rest of the channels. But yes now I would still pay extra if I wanted to watch them but not the Celtics. But my Dad would rather watch the Celtics, he has Cable which carries the CSN. I think he would pay for the Celtics and not the Red Sox. I do think the providers try to give most people what they want. We are all not going to be happy all the time !
I also remember the Sox on WSBK, and on Fox 25 as well. I also remember the Bruins having home games on NESN and road games on WSBK. When they were on broadcast, commercials flipped the bill. Now we are paying for it. I enjoy the games but many don't and it's crap for them. They should have a choice, and the RSNs should do nothing but accept it. I wouldn't want to be forced to pay for a feature I don't use in order to have a service. In all, I actually choose to listen to the games on either WEEI or The Sports Hub. I can listen while taking care of business around the house. I watch come playoff time, or if I go to a game live.
Did I forget to mention I packed a can of Troll B Gone in my carry on to Florida?
Enough of the insults, name calling and trolling. If you guys want to do that then I highly suggest you erase SatelliteGuys as a Bookmark.. and instead bookmark DBSTalk.
Play nice folks!
Enough of the insults, name calling and trolling. If you guys want to do that then I highly suggest you erase SatelliteGuys as a Bookmark.. and instead bookmark DBSTalk.
Play nice folks!
I'm not just expressing the way I feel about sports. It should be in it's own package that can be added on to the basic package one buys.
Nope, I just don't watch it and would rather see it in it's own package for those that watch it. That's not al la carte that's just packaging differently than it is now. You could sell them al la carte if they only wanted say ESPN as a group of channels. Then you could sell large groups of channels in sports packs.
If one lives within the territory of a particular team, then no, the sports subscription cannot allow viewing of that team's games.
The answer is "no".
How you "feel" is impertinent to the discussion.
If you want to bash sports programming, go to the appropriate forum and start a thread on that.
For now, let's stay on this one...
Now, I would agree with you on one condition. That is a a tier created for sports and news people.
For example. An all sports and news tier. Would contain the ESPN family, all RSN's , other sports relalted channels and all news and information channels such as FNC, CNBC, Bloomberg, etc.
There is a Canadian sat provider that does just that it wouldn't be too confusing. It's just the way the companies here do it doesn't allow for it.
HanoverPretzel said:
I get your side of this debate. I see it as economics. As you said channels such as Lifetime (even though it's a channel I hate) aren't charging up our backsides for carriage. That is a big deal. I would want TBS to be a premium channel too if they said "well it costs us so much to pay Connan and Tyler Perry's salaries and for the MLB, so I want Dish pay us $8 per sub." Sounds far fetched, but this is the road that sports channels are headed down. It's already around $5 per sub for ESPN. Now although I hate Lifetime, when they say I'm paying $0.52 for it, I really don't care as much. I'm a well documented sports fan around here. I am making this statement as someone who would pay for a sports themed package. I find it funny that you make it sound like it's an attack, when it's clearly not. It's economics. People are tired of paying for what they don't want. My argument. If ESPN and the RSNs don't impose the "wholesale price" and try to jack up subscription rates, I would be paying the same to have the sports pack as I do now with sports channels included in my base package
