[pfred]

I was just thinking, ESPN costs me $6-15 a month. That includes ESPN and all its spin-offs, plus the cut Dish gets for being the middle-man. That is money that I might as well have flushed down the toilet, since I don't give a rat's ass what is on those channels.

I wish more people would express their outrage, so we could get what we pay for.

 

[hilmar2k]

Everyone has channels that they don't watch that they pay for. I probably regularly watch fewer than 10 channels that I don't subscribe to specifically (HBO, MLB-EI, etc).

 

[sigma1914]

I was just thinking, ESPN costs me $6-15 a month. That includes ESPN and all its spin-offs, plus the cut Dish gets for being the middle-man. That is money that I might as well have flushed down the toilet, since I don't give a rat's ass what is on those channels.

I wish more people would express their outrage, so we could get what we pay for.

Many others don't give a crap about your channels, either.

 

[boba]

I was just thinking, ESPN costs me $6-15 a month. That includes ESPN and all its spin-offs, plus the cut Dish gets for being the middle-man. That is money that I might as well have flushed down the toilet, since I don't give a rat's ass what is on those channels.

I wish more people would express their outrage, so we could get what we pay for.

FIND the package that suits your viewing interests the best and subscribe to it. I like the Welcome Pak, no ESPN, that dosen't mean you will like the contents. If DISH dosen't have a package you like then you are subscribing to the wrong service look elsewhere for what will make you happy.

 

[maartena]

I was just thinking, ESPN costs me $6-15 a month. That includes ESPN and all its spin-offs, plus the cut Dish gets for being the middle-man. That is money that I might as well have flushed down the toilet, since I don't give a rat's ass what is on those channels.

I wish more people would express their outrage, so we could get what we pay for.

There are probably channels YOU watch that I don't give a rats ass about. Sorry, but that is how it works.... a-la-carte is never going to happen, big companies like Disney sell their channels in package deals, which includes every channel that starts with "ABC", "Disney" or "ESPN".

And there is NO cable provider, NO satellite provider, NO telco provider.... that sells any packages without a channel you might not like. There is a few without ESPN though.

So its either accept it or cancel altogether.

Want REAL a-la-carte? Take it one step further, don't choose channels, but choose individual programs from Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, and other sources. Your choice isn't going to be as great as Dish or DirecTV, but hey.... you won't be paying for all those channels you don't watch.

 

[sregener]

I was just thinking, ESPN costs me $6-15 a month. That includes ESPN and all its spin-offs, plus the cut Dish gets for being the middle-man. That is money that I might as well have flushed down the toilet, since I don't give a rat's ass what is on those channels.

I wish more people would express their outrage, so we could get what we pay for.

You select a package that has the channels you want, at a price you want it. That is fair. ESPN is costing you nothing if you don't want it - you're not paying for it. You are paying for a package of channels you want, which is priced at a level that you believe the channels are worth the cost you're paying. Nobody is robbing you here.

The cable stations have fought a la carte for a few decades - they aren't likely to give in now. But we do now have a la carte - by the program. And the costs compared to the package prices show how a la carte ends up costing more, not less, for most people and the way they view. The exception are those who are happy with only broadcast television for live and sporting events, and find older movies and television shows acceptable on Netflix or Amazon.com.

It is the nature of the customer to demand the most product for the least cost. And it is the nature of the producer to demand as much money for the least product as possible. Where the two meet is where free exchange takes place.

 

[vahighland]

I was just thinking, ESPN costs me $6-15 a month. That includes ESPN and all its spin-offs, plus the cut Dish gets for being the middle-man. That is money that I might as well have flushed down the toilet, since I don't give a rat's ass what is on those channels.

I wish more people would express their outrage, so we could get what we pay for.

++1

 

[Wilf]

. . . and find older movies and television shows acceptable on Netflix or Amazon.com.

It is a lot more than that ... it is "television without commercial interruption, even without the interruption of pushing the skip button. In my experience, after being a Netflix customer for over a year, I find it very difficult to watch TV with interruptions every ten minutes anymore - so I don't. Pay television should not have commercials!

 

[hilmar2k]

It is a lot more than that ... it is "television without commercial interruption, even without the interruption of pushing the skip button. In my experience, after being a Netflix customer for over a year, I find it very difficult to watch TV with interruptions every ten minutes anymore - so I don't. Pay television should not have commercials!

Then pay television would be much more expensive.

 

[richall01]

Give some people a $1,000 bucks and they will will not be happy because you give it to them in hundred dollar bills!

 

[phrelin]

Perspective is needed here. And don't throw in Welcome Paks or other packages that don't offer access to USA, TNT, Syfy, FX, Lifetime, Comedy Central, Nickelodeon and MTV. Those are core cable channels.

ESPN requires that it be is in the lowest AT tier and the equivalents through every satellite/cable source I've seen.

It represents 10-15% of the cost each provider charges for that that bottom tier.

It is part of Disney's group of channels which represent 20%-30% for that bottom tier.

 

[pfred]

There are probably channels YOU watch that I don't give a rats ass about. Sorry, but that is how it works.... a-la-carte is never going to happen

Never say never.
I have been hearing more talk from the media business that they know subscribers are fed up with spending so much for stuff they don't watch; and ESPN is the prime offender, and I whole-heartedly agree- stop forcing us to pay so much for ESPN and the rest of the sports tier (tear!).

 

[tampa8]

Never say never.
I have been hearing more talk from the media business that they know subscribers are fed up with spending so much for stuff they don't watch; and ESPN is the prime offender, and I whole-heartedly agree- stop forcing us to pay so much for ESPN and the rest of the sports tier (tear!).

:beatdeadhorse:

As so many, you don't realize what A La Carte for current programming really means. Easily the same cost or more than the $6 for ESPN. A combination of just 10 channels most certainly would cost $50 $60. And no way any provider is going to sell you just a two or three channels, there's not enough money in it to operate on that kind of income. Yes sports in general is expensive and RSN's in my opinion should be separate from the packages. But ESPN generally is watched in most households.

I specifiy current programming because look at what it costs for episodes of current programs from the likes of AMC if you buy them from Amazon as an example.

 

[SayWhat?]

There are probably channels YOU watch that I don't give a rats ass about.

But none that take as big a bite of the pie.

 

[tommiet]

Everyone has channels that they don't watch that they pay for. I probably regularly watch fewer than 10 channels that I don't subscribe to specifically (HBO, MLB-EI, etc).

No other station cost a premium price as ESPN and FOX Sports do. What if I asked everyone else to pay for HBO to lower the price?

ESPN needs to be added to a premium tier. It's the only station I know of that cost customers over $10.00 a month and I have no choice in the matter. If I'm wrong, someone correct me.

 

[tommiet]

On another note... Last year I send a comment about this to the CEO email address and I was given a $10.00 a month credit for a year. Guess its time to [email protected] again.

 

[sregener]

No other station cost a premium price as ESPN and FOX Sports do. What if I asked everyone else to pay for HBO to lower the price?

ESPN needs to be added to a premium tier. It's the only station I know of that cost customers over $10.00 a month and I have no choice in the matter. If I'm wrong, someone correct me.

No choice? Someone is holding a gun to your head and insisting that you subscribe to a package that includes ESPN? You always have a choice. The fact that a choice you would like better is not available does not mean you do not have a choice. It means that you have had to compromise.

In a perfect world, I would insist that stations sell their channels individually. They do not. They sell them in groups, and they negotiate which tiers which channels must go into.

Here's my a la carte solution: eliminate programming packages. Allow each company to create their own list, and set the prices accordingly. So if Disney wants you to buy ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNNews/ESPNU/ESPN Classic/Disney East/Disney West/Broadcast ABC and the price is $20/month, you can choose to buy the Disney corporate package or not. Time Warner can create their own TNT/TBS/TWC/etc package, and you can choose to buy it or not. Dish can put together a package of freebies (channels whose advertising pays for itself, or loss leaders) available to all. What I suspect is that if ESPN were moved to its own package, along with all the other channels Disney owns, 90% of you would buy it because you would want the other channels, EVEN IF YOU NEVER WATCH ESPN! Disney will never agree to move ESPN to its own tier, without tying it to the other channels.

What you seem to want is the perfect world, where you only pay for the channels you actually want. Here's the rub: if ESPN isn't in that mix, you'll end up paying more for your perfect world of a la carte because your channels are not as popular as ESPN. By making ESPN optional, you'd make your favorite channels optional, and because so few people (relatively speaking) would opt into your favorite channel, the cost per subscriber would jump up quickly. In many cases, these smaller audience channels would cease to exist. We'd probably end up with 20-30 cable channels, but we'd each only get a subset of them and it'd cost us about what we're paying now for the 8-10 channels we wanted. On the other hand, the quality of the available content would jump dramatically, as the good stuff wouldn't be spread over 250+ channels. But niche viewers would be left out altogether.

 

[Shades228]

It's like the buddy system. You may not like those channels you're paying for but someone else does. Someone else doesn't like the channels you do but they pay for them as well. This keeps the cost down for everyone. If it went the ala carte way people keep talking about you might not even have the option to watch some of those channels as they wouldn't survive and those that did would cost more overall than what you pay now. These companies are not going to do something that reduces their profits so that means it would just cost more.

 

[Stewart Vernon]

Yeah... choices exist whether you like them or not.

I would like to be able to just buy 5 Keebler cookies... not a pack that contains 12 or 20 or 60... but I can't. That means my choice is to buy the big bag of cookies or just not eat that brand.

You have a choice to pay for satellite/cable TV or not... then you have package choices if you choose to subscribe. That you don't have all possible choices is NOT an indicator that you don't have choice.

Also... I don't know where these ESPN numbers are coming from.

The title says "$6-$12" and then we have a recent assertion that it is costing someone $10 per month.

Does anybody REALLY know and have proof of how much of their Dish subscription goes to ESPN? Throwing large numbers around and talking about how awful they are loses meaning if these are made-up numbers.

 

[SatelliteSolutionsNetwork]

DISH offers more options when it comes to channel packages than almost any provider. There are 9 English packages alone, plus 5 Spanish packages. The point in creating all of these packages was to make sure customers have more choice and are left with less channels they don't want.

I know it can be frustrating to feel as if you are paying for more than you want or need, but, as the others noted, it's impossible to create customized channel packages so you will inevitably have access to a few channels you don't watch.