jmallory
join:2005-11-02
Clawson, MI
2 edits | Re: They didn't keep prices down said by Dogfather  :Given ESPNs low ratings I would disagree. Tell you what, you go setup your own service with all the sports on another Tier, and you report back with how successful you are.
Ratings are irrelevant in this particular discussion, people may not watch ESPN all the time, but they want access to it. During the peak of football season I may watch 12 hours of ESPN weekly...1/2 to 1/3 that any other time...but I would still want it. | |
|
 
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Re: They didn't keep prices down Easy tiger. Good for you and your football but there are quite a few people not interested in channel welfare.
Sports fans should pay to support their very expensive channels instead of expecting everyone else to pay for them. | |
|
 | jmallory
join:2005-11-02
Clawson, MI
| Re: They didn't keep prices down said by Dogfather :Easy tiger. Good for you and your football but there are quite a few people not interested in channel welfare. Sports fans should pay to support their very expensive channels instead of expecting everyone else to pay for them. Yep, and as soon as you show me some numbers were 51% of the subscribers don't want at least ESPN, ESPN2, and their RSN...we can talk about the rest. | |
|
| | |
| | | jmallory
join:2005-11-02
Clawson, MI | Re: They didn't keep prices down It isn't the number of eyeballs that matter, it is the type of consumer those eyeballs are attached to and it is a very lucrative consumer. | |
|
| | 
uid1307457
Premium
join:2005-12-30
Tempe, AZ
 ·Qwest.net
·Convergent Interne..
 ·DIRECTV
| said by jmallory :said by Dogfather :Easy tiger. Good for you and your football but there are quite a few people not interested in channel welfare. Sports fans should pay to support their very expensive channels instead of expecting everyone else to pay for them. Yep, and as soon as you show me some numbers were 51% of the subscribers don't want at least ESPN, ESPN2, and their RSN...we can talk about the rest. espn can go bankrupt for all i care | |
|
| | 
Hi Desert
@qwest.net
| said by jmallory :said by Dogfather :Easy tiger. Good for you and your football but there are quite a few people not interested in channel welfare. Sports fans should pay to support their very expensive channels instead of expecting everyone else to pay for them. Yep, and as soon as you show me some numbers were 51% of the subscribers don't want at least ESPN, ESPN2, and their RSN...we can talk about the rest.
You got it all wrong. Its not the market that is demanding ESPN to stay on all channel tiers. Its Disney's practice to bundle less popular channels with popular ones and even with some of their local networks they own. For example, if Dish wanted to create a tier without the expensive sports crap then Disney would drop Lifetime, possibly ABC, cartoon channels etc.. Its common knowledge that Disney extorts extra money through bundling extortion.. just do a google to confirm that. Disney owns so many channels as a content provider and they can basically charge more through bundling. Its totally wrong and is the major reason this industry needs regulation. These channels should exist on their own merit not on subsidies. And ESPN probably has the highest carriage fee of any channel and is one of the least watched channel. I'm sick of the increases myself and every time Dish has a hike I cut back services. I dropped one of my tuners last time. Next increase they will see me say goodbye. | |
|
| |
| |
| |
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Re: They didn't keep prices down Absolutely...bring on a la carte. | |
|
|
|
|
·
·
·
