So, really need local channels and sports for my area (SF Bay Area) at a minimum and also ESPN and other major content. At this point, no Warriors, no A’s, no Giants. 49ers will be carried by major networks so OK with football. They have a bazillion channels that I don’t watch. There are so many BS channels. Something is wrong. Think Dish needs to rethink what they deliver. Am I Crazy? SJ
Why do I have Dish?
- Thread starter sjhart
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 41
- Views 5K
Cable would give me those basics… Really local channels including sports…..
Then get cable... If one provider doesn't offer what you want, change to one or more that does.
Get cable if it's available to you, and keep both for a short time until you decide what's better. My local cable company (Spectrum) equipment is horribly out of date, and terrible to us.
Thanks for the responses. Been with Dish for 24 years. Hard to change but will see how I can get local sports. This is the whole regional sports stuff going on. I know Dish doesn’t want to pay, etc. but that leaves a new hole in their lineup for many.
Also live in the Bay Area and still wanted my Giants and Warriors. Switched to YouTube TV the middle of last month shortly before Dish dropped the two NBC Sports Networks (Bay Area and California). It's better than I thought though it's quite different from Dish. A few quirks but overall I'm pretty happy with the change. A big plus-the regular monthly cost is only $65.99 (getting a $10.00/month discount for the first three months).
At the time Dish dropped the Fox (now Bally) RSN's, they said only about 10% of the subscribers watched them. They didn't think it was fair that all subscribers had to pay for them.
Depending on what you want. If you just want locals and a few other things, look at the smaller packs. I have a friend that just has a $30 pack. It gives her locals, a few news channels, and some other channels. She doesn't need or want a huge package.
There’s a lot of channels I pay for that I don’t watch. Dish shouldn’t have singled out the RSNs. As soon as our contract is over I am moving back to Directv.
Someone really needs to come up with per pay channel you want. This way no one is paying for something they don’t want to watch. Do we need 15 24/7/365 news channels? It’s all the same info just a different spin.
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
You do realize I assume, that the programming providers are the ones that insist on packaging channels in bundles that include their less popular channels and which tier they'll be offered in. That's been a contractual issue for years. If DTV carries your preferred channels and Dish doesn't, then of course you should switch. I'm not under contract, but if Dish stopped providing the services I prefer then I'd be gone as fast as I could replace them with a better choice for my viewing interests. As streaming becomes more of a reality for more of my viewing preferences, that may not be all that far down the road...
That is a valid point. But there are a whole crap load of channels that many don't want. Key is finding the right balance. But keep in mind that when competitors offer a package that does have the channels at a lower price then that its time to switch. I did.
So then no one gets QVC, the Dish Access channels, the religious channels, et al except for the limited number of people that watch it. And I suppose those channels should lower their rates or hell, just give them to Dish for free, right?
As I recall, the shopping and most religious channels pay Dish for carriage, not the other way around.
Why are there so many shopping channels on cable and satellite? - The Solid Signal Blog
Before you get all up in arms about all those shopping channels in the guide... read up on this!
blog.solidsignal.com
Dish didn't single anyone out. They looked at the cost or what the RSNs demanded (generally only a few companies own the RSNs) and figured the cost was too high and the number of people that wanted it wouldn't be large enough. So they tried to keep more people happy and knew there would be losses.
As far as "pay per channel", the cost of a channel straight up in that format will be more than people will want to pay. And RSNs rather everyone pay for their channel, especially the people that don't watch them.
Probably not wanting anywhere near as much money as the RSNs wanted. And the RSNs began multiplying with teams wanting to create their own networks. Wanna blame anyone? Blame the consolidation of ownership of the RSNs and the fragmentation of the programming on them.
I don't know. I'm basically paying $78 month for the Golf Channel. I doubt it would cost that much a la carte.
Yes, and if you'll let me use your authentication from DISH I could view it that way. It requires a subscription from a TV provider.
Similar threads
