Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by mitchflorida, Feb 10, 2013.
Can't say I'm surprised.
Specialty channels like these will likely see more similar consolidation over the next couple of years.
Yeah, definitely not surprised. This has been rumored ever since FOX took over SPEED.
Will they channels move to new spots in the guide?
I guess I am the odd man out because I never watch any sports programming and continue to pay up the ying yang for them. NetFlix is looking better and better to me.
They are quadrupling their rates for these channels, as you can imagine.
Depends on their agreement and discussions with providers.
One day you will wake up and instead of saying Speed on the Guide, it will say Fox Sports 1.
Fox is asking 90 cents to $1 per subscriber for its Fox Sports 1 channel, according to a person with knowledge of the discussion, and expects to increase that price in future years.
Some of Fox's contracts with the cable and satellite channels also have provisions that allow some increases in the monthly fees they pay to carry its sports channels that would escalate if they were to add more popular programs, such as Major League baseball, said one of the people.
The question is whether or not they will move in the guide.
That's ok... many people have to pay for your favorite channels and don't watch them.
You are missing my point, but that's okay.
SPEED changed its logo last year when Fox Sports 1 was first mentioned. Their logo now has Fox Sports prominent with SPEED underneath it. It would be easy to replace the SPEED with a "1" or "One".
Hopefully Fox will not go too crazy with price increases for the channels ... but it is Fox and they like to charge for their programming.
ESPN charges about $8 a month. Fox Sports will be about $1.60 for the both of their channels. That is quite a bargain!
That's the current guess.
I'm all for a sports channel with no Chris Berman.
ESPN isn't $8 a month. It's a little over $5 a month.
I don't think he's missing your point. You pay for channels you don't watch and implied that another model or provider was maybe more in line with your viewing habits. He's pointing out that the situation exists regardless of what it is that you actually want to watch - some one us always going to pay for something they don't want... Even on Netflix.
We have no idea how much it is.
Like about $100 million for House of Cards?
All of these comments is why I am for pay per channel but then some channels would just go away because there would be no one watching. But then again if I had to pay knowingly $5 for ESPN I might not even though I'm a sports nut.