1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

ESPN costs me $6-12 a month: outrageous

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by pfred, May 9, 2012.

  1. May 19, 2012 #41 of 112
    CCarncross

    CCarncross Hall Of Fame

    7,058
    60
    Jul 19, 2005
    Jackson
    You posted this in a DISH forum, but truthfully, there isnt a content provider where you can get any substantial programming package that doesnt include ESPN. Shouldn't your outrage be posted somewhere else?
     
  2. May 19, 2012 #42 of 112
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,609
    380
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Who determines when we "no longer need to"?

    You do realize that advertising is the major source of revenue for broadcast channels via OTA and a good chunk of revenue for cable/satellite non-premium channels as well.

    if those ad dollars go poof (i.e. the end of commercials) where is that money going to come from? That's right... you and me. So our bills would skyrocket overnight IF commercials ended tomorrow.

    Just because you don't see the money change hands doesn't mean it isn't paying for much of the programming you watch.

    Those TV shows you stream on Netflix or buy on iTunes or Amazon or a retail store... most of them wouldn't exist if they weren't funded by commercials on TV.
     
  3. May 19, 2012 #43 of 112
    inazsully

    inazsully Icon

    859
    13
    Oct 3, 2006
    Commercials are absolutely necessary. Now if we could just get them to run them all by me before they allow them to air. Many are so idiotic it makes you wonder if anybody actually screens them before letting them see the light of day.
     
  4. May 19, 2012 #44 of 112
    satcrazy

    satcrazy Icon

    1,021
    19
    Mar 15, 2011
    Great...
    Having a lower tier dsl speed, I don't stream, so, Is Amazon instant and Itune commercial free?

    I don't know what they offer, but I watch a few series on fx, usa, tnt, and a few others. Conceavably you could drop to the lowest package, and just stream/pay for what you want. Only if they are commercial free, of course.

    or cut the cord and stream with OTA as back up. My problem is there isn't much of interest to me on locals, [with the exception of PBS and local news]

    I'd have to do the math to figure out if its cheaper than subbing to the 250 pkg.

    I am guessing here, but those ads that are jammed on us every 8 minutes are needed mostly to pay for the performer's rediculous salaries. The mute button is your friend.
     
  5. May 19, 2012 #45 of 112
    tampa8

    tampa8 Godfather/Supporter

    2,000
    33
    Mar 30, 2002
    Remind me again how much that one 2 1/2 hour movie costs? Oh ya, for a family of three or four as much as a month of a multitude of TV channels and programming..... Where by the way you can watch that movie eventually possibly with no commercials depending on your package. For sure no commercials with a $16 or less premium movie package.
     
  6. May 20, 2012 #46 of 112
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,609
    380
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Yeah... that's the thing people conveniently forget... To watch first-run commercial free movies in the theater costs a pretty penny, especially if you have a family.

    I often wonder... all the folk who complain about commercials and the cost of pay TV... how many of them go to theaters and pay a premium? I haven't been to a theater in so many years that I can't remember the last time. I get way more bang for my buck by subscribing to Dish and waiting for movies to show up there.
     
  7. May 20, 2012 #47 of 112
    Wilf

    Wilf Legend

    446
    22
    Oct 15, 2008
    Wow! You make it sound evil to watch the likes of Netflix. I can only speak for myself, but I would gladly pay much more for Netflix if I had to.

    Also keep in mind, Netflix, like all web services, is a low profit-margin business, unlike conventional cable.
     
  8. May 20, 2012 #48 of 112
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,609
    380
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Keep in mind that the content you watch on Netflix only exists because it was paid for elsewhere. The movies exist because they were made for the movie theater... the TV shows exist because they were made to air (mostly) on commercial TV.

    IF commercial TV goes away then those shows might go away... then Netflix doesn't have new content to stream!

    OR... as I've said... the cost goes up to account for the lost ad revenue... and then Netflix will cost more too.

    Netflix is fine for what it is... and fine as a supplemental business for viewing stuff. BUT if a substantial number of customers dropped cable and satellite in favor of Netflix, the cost of content to Netflix would increase to account for that lost revenue OR the content would stop coming.

    It's not about good and evil... it's about reality. It's one thing to talk about greedy movie executives... but if they don't make money, they stop making content.
     
  9. May 21, 2012 #49 of 112
    tommiet

    tommiet Godfather

    356
    7
    Dec 28, 2005
    I'm only asking NOT to pay for premium channel that I do not want. And the cost of ESPN/FOX SPORTS is just as high as other premium channels. Customers should have a choice for ANY channel that cost more than $5.00 a month.

    I can live without DISH and ESPN. Can you?

    ESPN--- NOT MY DRUG OF CHOICE.....
     
  10. May 21, 2012 #50 of 112
    Wilf

    Wilf Legend

    446
    22
    Oct 15, 2008
    Hmmm - so I shouldn't use a new business model because it might harm the old business model? Interesting viewpoint.
     
  11. May 21, 2012 #51 of 112
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,609
    380
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    I'm not asking for a la carte either... I'm only asking NOT to pay for the channels you like, but that I never watch.

    That, then, is how we get to a la carte because each of us likes different channels... but then that model has been tried and abandoned in large part because consumers almost always choose to bundle for savings rather than pay individual prices.

    That's not what I said at all. What I said was that Netflix is cheaper now because it is a secondary way to watch TV. You can bet if it becomes the primary choice, the costs will go up. That's the nature of business.

    So the "use Netflix because it is cheaper" argument is only true for now... Move enough people away from cable/satellite and to Netflix and watch how Netflix costs go up.

    History has taught us this over and over... New thing comes and is cheaper to get marketshare... gets marketshare and then prices go up because no good competition exists anymore... then next new thing comes along. rinse + repeat.
     
  12. May 21, 2012 #52 of 112
    inazsully

    inazsully Icon

    859
    13
    Oct 3, 2006
    In a way today's marketing strategy proves your point. It doesn't matter if you're talking about "D" or "E" or the local cable company. They like to brag that they have the most HD channels. They don't mention the quality of said channels or how many are premium movie channels that you have to pay extra for. Just that we have the most HD channels. And it impresses us. Unfortunately quanity often times wins out over quality.
     
  13. May 21, 2012 #53 of 112
    tommiet

    tommiet Godfather

    356
    7
    Dec 28, 2005
    Steward... please do not take my comments personally. Its the system I'm not happy with.

    Sounds like you are asking for a la carte. You do not want to pay for channels you do not watch. That is a la carte. I'm asking for the option not to pay for premium channels I do not want. I think we are talking about 2 different things.

    Good change that if you added up all the channels you do don't want (and are required to purchase due to packages offered,) they would not come close to the cost of the drug known as ESPN.

    ESPN --- The crack cocaine of Dish programming. :(
     
  14. May 21, 2012 #54 of 112
    oldschoolecw

    oldschoolecw HarpoonIPA

    1,550
    35
    Jan 25, 2007
    Halifax, MA
    You want la carte, it's called cord cutting. That what I'm really thinking about doing once my Dish contract is up in January 13

    I have almost all the tools
    PC
    Boxee Box
    Roku
    XBOX360
     
  15. May 21, 2012 #55 of 112
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,609
    380
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    I'm not taking things personally... I'm just pointing out why you can't just have your way without giving others the option to have their way.

    I guarantee you that the number of channels that I don't watch add up to more than what ESPN costs... because there are a lot of channels that I don't watch.

    I really don't want a la carte, though... I'm actually okay with the current model that allows new channels to take pennies on the dollar and be in a package that gets them enough subscribers to have enough revenue to spend money on programming rather than have to mortgage themselves to infinity to start up a PPV premium channel and hope they eventually get out of the red!

    I would love to see a historical comparison of pay tv price & number of channels over the course of history. My guess is that we aren't paying proportionally as much per channel now as we were when cable first started... and we have more choice by virtue of these packages, in some cases anchored by channels like ESPN that a lot of people want and are willing to pay for subsidizing other smaller less-popular channels existence.
     
  16. May 22, 2012 #56 of 112
    sregener

    sregener Godfather

    630
    26
    Apr 17, 2012
    I signed up for DirecTV in 1995. The cost was $29.95/month. There were about 70 channels, and many of the popular ones were not included because they were on USSB. There was no HD, and no DVR option. Local channels were not available, except in NYC and LA.

    Today, I have an HD DVR and 250 channels, plus locals. That's 3.5x more channels. 3.5x $29.95 would be over $106/month. The package price for AT250 is about $85, including all DVR fees. This assumes a fixed dollar, but inflation over that period would indicate the price should be about double that, so about $212/month just based on channel prices.

    Granted, this is a snapshot, not a long-term historical comparison. Still, it puts things in perspective, does it not?
     
  17. May 23, 2012 #57 of 112
    tommiet

    tommiet Godfather

    356
    7
    Dec 28, 2005
    Looks like a whole lota cords to me!!!! :hurah:
     
  18. May 23, 2012 #58 of 112
    pfred

    pfred Mentor

    47
    0
    Feb 8, 2009
    It doesn't have to be a-la-carte. They can also do tiers, like a sports tier, a DIY tier, science&nature tier, ... etc.
    I think media companies are shooting themselves in the foot by telling me "You want Discovery, well you have to take ESPN and you over there, you want ESPN, you have to take Lifetime"
     
  19. May 25, 2012 #59 of 112
    tommiet

    tommiet Godfather

    356
    7
    Dec 28, 2005
    AMEN!
     
  20. May 27, 2012 #60 of 112
    Link

    Link Hall Of Fame

    1,802
    4
    Feb 1, 2004
    Even cable companies are finally offering cheaper cable options that don't include ESPN because of the costs. Expanded basic cable is about $70-80 now and gets more unaffordable each year. The cable companies have no choice but to start offering different tier options if they want to keep customers.
     

Share This Page