We all pay for channels we never watch and Dish's programming packages do offer a good set of options. Here's how I view the list, however:
No one wants to pay for the channels they don't watch. I'd drop down a tier in my package, but there is one freakin' channel in the tier I'm in that is a "must have" for us, so I end up paying for a bunch of channels we never watch.
Welcome Pack $19.99
Smart Pack $29.99
Dish America $39.99
America's Top 120 $49.99 (includes four ESPN channels)
America's Top 120+ $59.99
America's Top 200 $64.99
America's Top 250 $74.99
America's Everything Pak $119.99
I dropped two levels to AT120 when Dish and AMC were fighting because the only channel left in AT200 that I really wanted was BBCA and it isn't worth $15 a month (and AMC now appears in AT120).
The problem is the AT120 package costs (rounded) $50 a month and it appears that the ESPN channels represent 15%± of the cost. Add Disney to that and I and many others start to grimace because it appears that ESPN/Disney represents half the price difference between the Smart Pack and AT120.
IMHO as the pricing for ESPN climbs, at some point one has to say the ESPN channels should be in the AT120+ package. And it would be ok if access to the Disney channels were to start there to create a combined household desire to spend the extra money.
Of course, I don't like the package structures. I advocate having the cable/satellite signal carriers be like the phone company or ISP - have them sell you access and equipment for a monthly fee. Then you buy packages or channel access that the media companies decide to create and offer. It would set up true competition between the media companies and honest competition between the signal carriers. In that scenario the media companies would have to compete for your dollar by creating desirable and affordable content. And so would content production companies whether they were the NFL or Chuck Lorre Productions.