(09-27-2019 07:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-26-2019 06:20 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(09-26-2019 06:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-26-2019 05:24 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-26-2019 03:48 PM)bullet Wrote:  I think this is a bigger loser for DISH than Fox. Fox channels aren't anywhere near as expensive as ESPN/Disney.

Like I've said elsewhere, it's really a catch-22 for everyone involved.

The biggest reason why people choose to drop cable/satellite is the high price, which is caused the most by sports channels.

At the same time, though, the biggest reason why people choose to keep cable/satellite is for sports. The vast majority of everything else on TV can be obtained through other sources (e.g. OTA, Netflix, Hulu, etc.).

Really? I keep cable because my wife likes female-oriented channels. Otherwise, I would just pay for Youtube TV, which seems to offer plenty of sports channels for $50 a month.

Actually, I think the biggest reason people keep cable or satellite is for the local channels. But more people are rediscovering OTA. At least those who get a pretty good signal. The rural people will have to stay with cable or satellite.

FWIW, where I live, if I got Youtube TV, I would get all the major local OTAs. I suspect that's true in most places.

Yes. You would get CBS, NBC, ABC and FOX. All the sports channels expect NFL Network. YouTube TV other than History and MTV you get all the major cable networks.