Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo

ESPN costs me $6-12 a month: outrageous


  • Please log in to reply
111 replies to this topic

#26 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 20,351 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 16 May 2012 - 07:21 PM

That argument only holds water for like-priced channels. I don't care if they have 30 channels I don't watch that are getting 30 or 40 cents each. When one oddball is included at 10-15 times the 'normal' rate, it makes the whole mess lopsided.


Wait... so it is unfair for you to have to pay $5 for one channel you don't want but it is somehow fair for me to have to pay $5 for 10 channels I don't want?

How does that work?

Isn't it the same argument?

My paying for ESPN in that package helps support you by me also paying for all those channels you like but that I never watch... similarly, your paying for those channels you like then helps me get ESPN.

While we all know why a la carte isn't the savior that people think it would be... at least people who want ALL channels a la carte are being fair to everyone. Your argument to just single out ESPN wouldn't be fair to everyone at all.

I would still be paying for dozens of channels that you like but that I don't watch in your scenario, whereas you would be saving money by not paying for ESPN. How is that fair?

-- !rotaredoM mA eM

What I do when I'm not here


...Ads Help To Support This Site...

#27 OFFLINE   jpeckinp

jpeckinp

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 228 posts
Joined: Nov 05, 2006

Posted 16 May 2012 - 09:06 PM

If Dish, Direct and the cable companies would band together and make a stand, they could break Disney's will.


It's called collusion and would never stand up if and when it went to the courts.;)

#28 OFFLINE   tommiet

tommiet

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 346 posts
Joined: Dec 28, 2005

Posted 17 May 2012 - 04:48 AM

ESPN (or sports in general,) is like a drug for some. Pay the cost no mater what and if you can get others to help pay for your drug of choice, even better....
**** HARDWARE *****
2 Dish Hoppers (Gave up trying to get a Joey to work)
VIZIO 55” and 48" TruLED LCD 3D HDTV with VIZIO
JVC HDI RX-D402B Receiver
2 SLINGBOX PRO'S

#29 OFFLINE   Wilf

Wilf

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 289 posts
Joined: Oct 15, 2008

Posted 17 May 2012 - 06:42 AM

ESPN (or sports in general,) is like a drug for some. Pay the cost no mater what and if you can get others to help pay for your drug of choice, even better....

That says it all! And that is why the media companies are fighting IPTV, which is where things are going, whether they like it or not.

#30 ONLINE   SayWhat?

SayWhat?

    Know Nothing

  • Registered
  • 5,954 posts
Joined: Jun 06, 2009

Posted 17 May 2012 - 07:09 AM

It's called collusion and would never stand up if and when it went to the courts.;)


No, it's called a boycott and it would never get to court because none of the carriers are required to carry any specific provider package.
Help stamp out Twits and Twitterers!

HD, SchmacHD!! Just be glad you've got a picture at all.

#31 OFFLINE   Redbullsnation

Redbullsnation

    Mentor

  • Registered
  • 37 posts
Joined: Apr 16, 2012

Posted 17 May 2012 - 07:23 PM

This is why more people need to wake up and realize what crappy channels they're paying for that they don't even watch. I watch like 3-4 channels a day, 7 total for everybody here and I still can't figure out why the other million channels are there...

A la carte will be the future OR the never...

#32 OFFLINE   Inkosaurus

Inkosaurus

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 678 posts
Joined: Jul 29, 2011

Posted 18 May 2012 - 04:31 AM

This is why more people need to wake up and realize what crappy channels they're paying for that they don't even watch. I watch like 3-4 channels a day, 7 total for everybody here and I still can't figure out why the other million channels are there...

A la carte will be the future OR the never...


A la carte is the past, it was around and it failed.

#33 OFFLINE   Wilf

Wilf

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 289 posts
Joined: Oct 15, 2008

Posted 18 May 2012 - 07:44 AM

A la carte is the past, it was around and it failed.

No, it's here and now. It is known as Netflix, Amazon Video, Acorn TV, etc.

#34 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 20,351 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 18 May 2012 - 01:54 PM

No, it's here and now. It is known as Netflix, Amazon Video, Acorn TV, etc.


Those aren't a la carte. You have to pay a monthly fee for everything whether you watch anything or not. While they are lower fees, they also have far less available content too... but definitely NOT a la carte.

-- !rotaredoM mA eM

What I do when I'm not here


#35 OFFLINE   sregener

sregener

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 626 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2012

Posted 18 May 2012 - 02:04 PM

Those aren't a la carte. You have to pay a monthly fee for everything whether you watch anything or not. While they are lower fees, they also have far less available content too... but definitely NOT a la carte.


Amazon Instant Video is most definitely a la carte. Amazon Prime is not. ITunes is a la carte.

#36 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 20,351 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 18 May 2012 - 05:08 PM

Amazon Instant Video is most definitely a la carte. Amazon Prime is not. ITunes is a la carte.


He said "Netflix" and "Amazon Video"... he didn't specify Amazon Prime vs Amazon Instant Video. Since he listed Netflix first, I assumed me meant Amazon Prime.

That said...

Amazon Instant Video and iTunes aren't "a la carte" in the sense of what people mean when they talk about TV.

Best Buy is a la carte using that logic... but I don't think most people compare their purchases at Best Buy or iTunes where you buy and own a movie to Netflix streaming or satellite/cable TV services.

I wouldn't call iTunes and Amazon Instant Video or any other place where you buy something "a la carte"... it's a different metric and comparison.

IF you purchase everything you want to watch, then you don't need cable or satellite or even Netflix at all.

IF you want to rent or stream or see things as they are released, then you need Netflix or cable or satellite or OTA or something else.

Edited by Stewart Vernon, 18 May 2012 - 09:43 PM.

-- !rotaredoM mA eM

What I do when I'm not here


#37 OFFLINE   Inkosaurus

Inkosaurus

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 678 posts
Joined: Jul 29, 2011

Posted 18 May 2012 - 09:04 PM

No, it's here and now. It is known as Netflix, Amazon Video, Acorn TV, etc.


Thanks for not reading the post I was quoting and completely missing the context of mine.

Everyone knows when it comes to this forum, and even this thread (based on how its been brought up thus far) that when "a la carte" is brought up were talking about picking and mixing your channel line up with your tv provider, which is also what the person I was quoting was talking about.

Paying for individual episodes is the absolute extreme version of a la carte and honestly its not even a valid discussion in my opinion. The people who do purchase individual episodes more then most likely havent abandoned pay tv all together and are only buying these episodes because they dont want to change there package around to accomodate for one shows worth of episodes.

So once again.

A la carte is the past, and its failed.

#38 OFFLINE   tampa8

tampa8

    Godfather/Supporter

  • Registered
  • 1,880 posts
Joined: Mar 30, 2002

Posted 19 May 2012 - 06:43 AM

......
Everyone knows when it comes to this forum, and even this thread (based on how its been brought up thus far) that when "a la carte" is brought up were talking about picking and mixing your channel line up with your tv provider, which is also what the person I was quoting was talking about.

Paying for individual episodes is the absolute extreme version of a la carte and honestly its not even a valid discussion in my opinion. The people who do purchase individual episodes more then most likely havent abandoned pay tv all together and are only buying these episodes because they dont want to change there package around to accomodate for one shows worth of episodes.

So once again.

A la carte is the past, and its failed.


+1

#39 OFFLINE   sregener

sregener

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 626 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2012

Posted 19 May 2012 - 06:53 AM

Paying for individual episodes is the absolute extreme version of a la carte and honestly its not even a valid discussion in my opinion. The people who do purchase individual episodes more then most likely havent abandoned pay tv all together and are only buying these episodes because they dont want to change there package around to accomodate for one shows worth of episodes.

So once again.

A la carte is the past, and its failed.


But this is precisely the point: buying individual shows is a la carte, and it doesn't take much to realize just how much more expensive that route is than buying a package of channels for most people. People who advocate a la carte do so because they believe it will save them money. Odds are good it won't.

But that does not mean buying individual shows is not a valid option worthy of discussion. Buying a TiVo box and hooking it up to an antenna would give most people the majority of what they watch. Then, a pay-per-show option would likely save them quite a bit, as there aren't that many scripted shows on cable worth anything. The only thing lost would be lots of live sports. Netflix's mail service would provide plenty of movies. How is this not a valid option?

#40 OFFLINE   Wilf

Wilf

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 289 posts
Joined: Oct 15, 2008

Posted 19 May 2012 - 07:51 AM

Those aren't a la carte. You have to pay a monthly fee for everything whether you watch anything or not. While they are lower fees, they also have far less available content too... but definitely NOT a la carte.

Perhaps 'a la carte' is not the correct term. But with the likes of Netflix, you are paying for TV without the ads. And that is really addicting. I believe most folks would find it intolerable if the local movie theater interrupted a movie with a three minute ad every ten minutes. Why should we accept that on our TV's when we no longer need to? I know you can choose to watch PPV without ads, but you are paying for that movie on top of the fees you are paying for all the channels you do not watch. It is a crazy system that we no longer need to tolerate.

#41 OFFLINE   CCarncross

CCarncross

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 7,058 posts
  • LocationJackson
Joined: Jul 19, 2005

Posted 19 May 2012 - 10:14 AM

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?

#42 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 20,351 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 19 May 2012 - 10:45 AM

I believe most folks would find it intolerable if the local movie theater interrupted a movie with a three minute ad every ten minutes. Why should we accept that on our TV's when we no longer need to?


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.

-- !rotaredoM mA eM

What I do when I'm not here


#43 OFFLINE   inazsully

inazsully

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 781 posts
Joined: Oct 03, 2006

Posted 19 May 2012 - 04:17 PM

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.

#44 OFFLINE   satcrazy

satcrazy

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 867 posts
  • LocationGreat lakes, NW Pa.
Joined: Mar 15, 2011

Posted 19 May 2012 - 07:58 PM

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.

Edited by satcrazy, 19 May 2012 - 08:09 PM.


#45 OFFLINE   tampa8

tampa8

    Godfather/Supporter

  • Registered
  • 1,880 posts
Joined: Mar 30, 2002

Posted 19 May 2012 - 09:18 PM

I believe most folks would find it intolerable if the local movie theater interrupted a movie with a three minute ad every ten minutes.


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.

#46 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 20,351 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 19 May 2012 - 11:33 PM

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.


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.

-- !rotaredoM mA eM

What I do when I'm not here


#47 OFFLINE   Wilf

Wilf

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 289 posts
Joined: Oct 15, 2008

Posted 20 May 2012 - 05:38 AM

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.

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.

#48 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 20,351 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 20 May 2012 - 12:30 PM

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.


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.

-- !rotaredoM mA eM

What I do when I'm not here


#49 OFFLINE   tommiet

tommiet

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 346 posts
Joined: Dec 28, 2005

Posted 21 May 2012 - 04:19 AM

Those aren't a la carte. You have to pay a monthly fee for everything whether you watch anything or not. While they are lower fees, they also have far less available content too... but definitely NOT a la carte.


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.....
**** HARDWARE *****
2 Dish Hoppers (Gave up trying to get a Joey to work)
VIZIO 55” and 48" TruLED LCD 3D HDTV with VIZIO
JVC HDI RX-D402B Receiver
2 SLINGBOX PRO'S

#50 OFFLINE   Wilf

Wilf

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 289 posts
Joined: Oct 15, 2008

Posted 21 May 2012 - 08:56 AM

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!

Hmmm - so I shouldn't use a new business model because it might harm the old business model? Interesting viewpoint.




Protected By... spam firewall...And...