# Dish Network price increase January 16, 2018......



## cj9788 (May 14, 2003)

So I was speaking with Dish today and was told that effective January 16, 2018 they will be doing the annual price increase. This is what they told me...

Locals 10.00 new price 12.00
Welcome Pack 19.99 new price 22.99
Smart Pack 31.99 new price 32.99
Dish America 44.99 new price 47.99
Flex Pack no change
AT 120 59.99 new price 62.99
AT 120+ 64.99 new price 67.99
AT 200 74.99 new price 77.99
AT 250 84.99 new price 87.99
AEP 134.99 new price 137.99

I took the renewal offer they said had to do a 24 month commitment but they said it would lock my price to the 2016 prices.

She mentioned that the Latino core packs will go up as well as late fees & box return fees but I did not write those down.......


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

Looks like the usual $5 increase for the combined package and locals for the most part. DTV breaks out their 2018 increases a little differently, going up from $0 to $8:

DIRECTV Price Changes 2018


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Big surprise... what with all the content providers wanting more and more.


----------



## RBA (Apr 14, 2013)

Have the rules changed for 2018? Can I drop the locals from the Welcome pack?


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

RBA said:


> Have the rules changed for 2018? Can I drop the locals from the Welcome pack?


Check and see if it's a separate selectable item under "Programming" on your MyDish account.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NYDutch said:


> Check and see if it's a separate selectable item under "Programming" on your MyDish account.


I have the option to remove locals on my account. It was not there early this year when DISH split the price of locals out of the package prices.

If you can live without locals it is worth considering. In my case having PTAT and being able to record multiple locals at the same time (instead of one OTA channel, two if the software is ever updated) makes it a hard package to drop.

DISH has also made it possible to add the flex pack packages to an AT base package. For example, AT120 plus News Pack. I would not need to drop down to the Flex Pack to add the extra packages. Some research would be needed to see what core plus add ons would be needed to get the channels I watch.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

James Long said:


> I have the option to remove locals on my account. It was not there early this year when DISH split the price of locals out of the package prices.


I have the option as well with AT200, but I don't know if the option is also available in the Welcome pack.


----------



## RBA (Apr 14, 2013)

RBA said:


> Have the rules changed for 2018? Can I drop the locals from the Welcome pack?


I'm asking about changes in 2018, now locals must go with Welcome pack.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

RBA said:


> I'm asking about changes in 2018, now locals must go with Welcome pack.


Log on and check (if you have the Welcome Pack) ... or call DISH.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

I was watching the latest news from Cord Cutters. Direct Now has over a million subs with their streaming service. Don't know what the numbers with Sling are. But the estimates of people that are cord cutting is increasing a huge amount monthly as satellite & cable rates increase. I have the Roku and do sub to Warner streaming for old TV shows. Currently watching The old FBI series. The experts feel that most OTA TV stations will be streaming with in the next few years. The Roku now has many apps for cable services. Now you need a sub for many via satellite or cable, but even that is changing as some you do not. Here, I do fine with streaming, but there are down times occasionally, so I have not made the cord cutter move as yet, but it is in my future. Plus there are so many other channels that are totally free with the Roku. Being a "news junkie" I love watching the International news channels in English. With the Roku there are many available for free. But cable & satellite subs are down, as the cost for a good package with satellite/cable is getting close to $100 a month. I do not blame Dish or Direct for the increases, but cord cutting saves a lot of money and you pay for what you want. Philo streaming has a decent pack for $16 a month. There are many others too, You Tube, Playstation Vue, etc. Streaming is changing the picture of how we watch TV. Direct Now announces a DVR function coming. I wish Dish would sell the AT's without sports. That would lower our prices a lot. I have no idea what ESPN costs now, but several years ago it was in the $5 amount. But since Disney owns it all they can dictate how their channels are sold. I think I am still locked into my old price for another year.


----------



## crodrules (Nov 21, 2016)

cj9788 said:


> So I was speaking with Dish today and was told that effective January 16, 2018 they will be doing the annual price increase. This is what they told me...
> 
> Locals 10.00 *new price 12.00
> Welcome Pack 19.99 new price 22.99*
> ...


That would still be a good price for Welcome Pack if you could drop the Locals and get it for only $10.99 per month.

I did the two-year contract for Flex Pack back in 2016 just to get the price lock, and now it looks like the price would not have increased anyway, even without the contract.


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

Interesting how locals went up after their new deal with CBS. I'll probably just drop Dish altogether. I don't want to pay more than the $35 now (Welcome Pack plus DVR).


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

Link said:


> Interesting how locals went up after their new deal with CBS. I'll probably just drop Dish altogether. I don't want to pay more than the $35 now (Welcome Pack plus DVR).


The locals have likely gone up every year lately, but when they were included in the primary package, we just weren't as aware of it. The total increase was still the usual $5, with the locals accounting for 40% of it! I suspect part of Dish's reasoning in breaking out the locals was so the subscribers could see just how much of an out of step impact the greedy locals owners are having on costs.


----------



## crodrules (Nov 21, 2016)

NYDutch said:


> The locals have likely gone up every year lately, but when they were included in the primary package, we just weren't as aware of it. *The total increase was still the usual $5*, with the locals accounting for 40% of it! I suspect part of Dish's reasoning in breaking out the locals was so the subscribers could see just how much of an out of step impact the greedy locals owners are having on costs.


Except that Welcome Pack does not usually have any increase, and this time the increase is $3.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

I wonder what charges the OTA locals will offer once they start streaming? Will your "local" OTA channels offer for free or a charge? OTA TV is free at least for now.


----------



## crodrules (Nov 21, 2016)

mwdxer said:


> I wonder what charges the OTA locals will offer once they start streaming? Will your "local" OTA channels offer for free or a charge? OTA TV is free at least for now.


This is just a wild guess, but the streaming will probably be free for viewers within the OTA signal's footprint, since the signals are already available for free there. Viewers outside the OTA footprint, but still within the DMA, will have to pay a fee to get them, since they are used to paying a fee for cable or satellite access to those channels anyway. Viewers outside the DMA will probably be blocked from streaming the stations at all, with the possible exception of viewers in an out-of-market area where the OTA signal is already available.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

My wild guess is that local stations will charge for streaming. Most charge for everything other than OTA (and many would charge for OTA if they could).

Streaming local news seems to be free where available. Locally produced content (for the most part) owned by the station. Anything that the station does not own would need to run through the rules of the content owner. Which will likely limit distribution to the station's own market (easier to define as a DMA than an OTA footprint - but hard to define as ranges of IPs). Contracts and rights severely affect what a station can do with content they buy.

The station cannot sell what they do not own ... for example, if the station did not buy the rights to stream "Dr Phil" when they bought the rights to air "Dr Phil" on their OTA broadcast that content cannot be streamed. Fortunately there are laws in place that allow the rebroadcast of the OTA without worrying about individual programs and content within the programs. The laws need to catch up with the technology.


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

crodrules said:


> This is just a wild guess, but the streaming will probably be free for viewers within the OTA signal's footprint...


Not true with CBS All Access...


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

patmurphey said:


> Not true with CBS All Access...


And I don't see locals being free in or out of the footprint. They are not that way now on Cable or Satellite and have shown no move towards that when streaming.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

With ATSC 3.0 on the horizon, some see that some OTA services will be charged to the viewer. Hard to tell which ones. If OTA TV starts charging, I feel this will be the end of TV as we know it. Sure people pay for cable, satellite, but it is included so many do not realize there are paying for it. OTA TV has always been free. Will the local public be willing to pay for it? There are so many choices of TV today, that OTA may be the thing of the past for many. I know many young people never watch satellite, cable, or even OTA. They will pay Hulu or Netflix for their favorite shows, but with no ads. But I do remember an old engineer I knew told me back in the 70s that one day everything will be pay. If you want the news you pay for it, network shows, you pay for it. So we may get to that. However with streaming and the Roku there are thousands of apps (channels) that are free, some with ads, other not. But you can be sure if OTA TV stations feel they can charge for programming, they will. Will the FCC allow OTA TV to charge? I am glad Dish does offer locals to be dropped for those who do not want to pay for them. If more people drop locals, then it may be a wake up call to TV stations.


----------



## crodrules (Nov 21, 2016)

patmurphey said:


> Not true with CBS All Access...


The counter-point to that is that cwtv.com is completely free with no log-in, no matter where you live. I prefer CW programming over anything that CBS airs anyway.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

mwdxer said:


> If OTA TV starts charging, I feel this will be the end of TV as we know it.


TV as we knew it has already ended. TV as we know it know is much different than the traditional definition that died a decade or more ago. Paying for free TV began decades ago when Congress allowed stations to withhold their signal from cable, and later satellite, without payment of a fee. (In recent years increased fees have become an issue.) Today's "TV" includes tapes, discs, streaming and downloads.

"TV" is in constant change. We have come a long way from "watch live when it airs or miss it" TV. I remember before VCRs when the stations scheduled re-runs so viewers could catch shows they missed or annual specials. (How else would someone watch "It's A Wonderful Life" or "The Wizard of Oz" every year before home video?) Change is constant and it didn't begin in 2017.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

I just wonder "if" OTA TV starts costing the consumer, how the ratings will drop for local stations? I wonder with so many TV viewing options out there, can the Networks really compete? If we have to pay for streaming, the viewer can get the same shows from Hulu or Netflix without ads. I figured one reason stations raised the rates to satellite & cable, is they just are not making the percentage of money they used to from advertising. After all if a company wants to buy ad time, there are so many places to spend their money. Years ago all we had was OTA Radio, TV, and newspapers. The number of new streaming services has skyrocketed since I even bought my first Roku in 2013. Much of the services are free too. Everyone is getting on the bandwagon offering some streaming service.


----------



## STDog (Mar 22, 2007)

mwdxer said:


> If we have to pay for streaming, the viewer can get the same shows from Hulu or Netflix without ads.


Except a lot of the shows would go away or never be made w/o the big 4 networks.

So you won't be able to get them on Netflix or Hulu.
Sure both have some good original stuff, but not much with the budget and talent the big 4 get.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

mwdxer said:


> I just wonder "if" OTA TV starts costing the consumer, how the ratings will drop for local stations?


Your "if" is misplaced. Most Pay TV subscribers *are* paying for OTA TV as part of their subscriptions. Only the cordcutters/cordnevers avoid paying for OTA. Charging for OTA will only serve to reduce that number. (People who pay for OTA content via Amazon, Hulu, CBS All Access and other sources reduce the "don't pay for TV" count.)


----------



## SHS (Jan 8, 2003)

It sad I had all ready cut my bill back by dropping down to next lower package and all locals channels


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

I wonder if OTA (with antenna) will start scrambling and we will need a converter box in the future, just to watch the evening news? I do remember some OTA movie channels in cities often offered that service in the 50s & 60s. The TV stations often "brag" about having free OTA TV. So maybe free OTA TV as we know it will stay around for sometime. Of course OTA TV that cable costs the provider and TV station to get the signal to the viewer. So I can understand some fee to get OTA via cable or satellite, but not as much as it is costing. With so many free options for cord cutters, I can see why that is popular. But even that, the free streaming may also be a thing of the past, if there is a dollar to be made.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stations are REQUIRED to have one free unscrambled OTA feed. What they do with the rest of their bandwidth (ie: subscription channels) is up to the station.

Theoretically a station could air infomercials as the main feed and charge a subscription for the network feed. The main feed would still need to meet the minimum requirements for a TV station (children's programming, issues programming, etc). The logistics of charging for the subscription feed would need to be handled.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

I just wonder how many people would start to pay for an OTA Network station? I doubt I would, unless I did not have access to local news.


----------



## cj9788 (May 14, 2003)

mwdxer said:


> I wonder what charges the OTA locals will offer once they start streaming? Will your "local" OTA channels offer for free or a charge? OTA TV is free at least for now.


Well they may have streaming service for free with commercials you can not skip or charge a monthly fee to see content without commercials.


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

James Long said:


> Stations are REQUIRED to have one free unscrambled OTA feed. What they do with the rest of their bandwidth (ie: subscription channels) is up to the station.
> 
> Theoretically a station could air infomercials as the main feed and charge a subscription for the network feed. The main feed would still need to meet the minimum requirements for a TV station (children's programming, issues programming, etc). The logistics of charging for the subscription feed would need to be handled.


If they did that and charged as much as CBS, Dish locals would be a colossal bargain.


----------



## Mojo Jojo (Mar 14, 2012)

Looks like Dish officially put up the 2018 rate page: 2018 Programming Rates | MyDISH | DISH Customer Support

Looks like some of the Flex Pack add-ons are going up from $10 to $12 a month...


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

Yes, it is getting really expensive to have everything a person wants with any provider. Spectrum keeps calling me to try to get me to switch, but of course Spectrum does not offer everything Dish does and the end of the period, their rates go up too. There is no free lunch. Programmers want way too much. But as long as the consumer will pay it, nothing will change. Cord cutting is getting more popular and is beginning to cut into all providers.


----------



## jsk (Dec 27, 2006)

If you’re fortunate enough to live in an area where you can get OTA, get the OTA adapter and drop the locals. Whenever there is a dispute, it won’t affect you and you end up with more channels than Dish provides. At least on the 722K (and I assume the newer models too), the locals and their sub channels integrate nicely into the guide with EPG guide data. The guide data is missing from some of the sub channels and some channels that Dish doesn’t carry. For example, Dish carries the Maryland Public Television station from Annapolis, so there is guide data for that channel, but they don’t carry the Maryland Public Television station from Baltimore so I don’t see guide data for that channel. 

The only word of caution, is that the FCC is repacking all of the OTA channels and you may need to rescan for channels periodically over the next few years and you could gain or lose channels.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

Unfortunately the ATSC 1.0 tuner will not do 3.0, so my old 211k may be retired in time. I get 17 OTA channels here with the sub channels. Dish only offers 9. So having OTA via an antenna is a plus.


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

DISH needs to start purging channels to make this better.

For example, the Viacom channels are complete rubbish and need to come off the system. There is nothing of value with any of these channels.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Different strokes for different folks. I watch a Viacom channel four nights a week for at least an hour. It is easy to eliminate someone else's favorite channels.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

Probably nearly every channel Dish offers is popular to someone. I know people that a glued to either a religious or a shopping channel, which I never watch. With me, the Sports channels should be put into a separate package (all of them), and sold as an add-on for those that would want them. Our bills probably would stay lower. I like having the variety of AT250, but I do not want to pay for Sports channels, as I never watch them. But I know of many that would disagree that love sports.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

If that happened then the cost for the other channels those companies offer would also increase to offset the losses. They’d figure it out one way or the other.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

You probably have a good point. The "bean counters" will always find a way to make more $$$. Some are cord-cutting and that works for many, adding in OTA. Here, I do have high speed at 60, but there are times it is down. Can be for 15 minutes or several hours. Once it was down for a day and a half. At this time I would never totally cord cut. Also there are many channels that don't stream, add to that most cable type channels offer their streaming channel for free, but with only a cable or satellite service.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

mwdxer said:


> You probably have a good point. The "bean counters" will always find a way to make more $$$.


The first goal is to make the same money ... Let people drop your channel and you have to charge the remaining subscribers more just to break even. With a price increase more people might not see the value in the channel. So their best move to keep their per subscriber cost low is to have as many subscribers as possible. Then they can look for slight increases to cover the cost of purchasing programming for the channel.

None of this is done in a vacuum. Getting the mix just right can be a challenge.


----------



## KevinRS (Oct 9, 2007)

The problem with the idea of breaking out the sports channels into a separate package, and other similar ideas, is that bundling positions are part of the negotiations for the fees paid, and the sports channels are owned by the networks. So network X will offer the local for Y dollars per sub, only if sports channel Z is also carried in the basic package for W dollars per subscriber.
This kind of agreement is why there isn't any real a la cart pricing. 

On comparing what networks have done with streaming, CBS all access has exclusive content they try to justify the price with. Is their content if you pay for it commercial free or at least limited in commercials?

To me, if a local isn't bothering to get broadcast signal to their entire DMA, they should allow free live streaming to whole DMA, with the commercials and all intact.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

Yes, I do understand that. As long as the big corps like Disney owns ABC, Disney, as well as ESPN. We have little choice. Flex kind of works, but there are so many channels that are not included or available.


----------



## satcrazy (Mar 16, 2011)

As an after thought, there is a channel on Roku that airs older movies for free, and the catch is very do-able:
three consecutive commercials lasting about 90 seconds at the very beginning, then 3 more half way through the movie lasting about another 90 seconds. Just enough time to get up and do whatever. Win-win.
Perfect.
Weather nation's channel on Roku is another winner. Better than weather channel's "interactive".


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

True, but if you go looking, there are some apps (channels) that do not run any ads or an ad inbetween the movies/shows. (At least for now). I like the old TV shows I can find on You tube and other apps. With over 5000 channels and counting, there is nearly something for about everyone. I like a lot of the "off the wall" channels that are uploaded by colleges, bands, small cable or OTA channels that run odd ball programming. Much like the early days of the big dish. Many channels are junk, but there are quite a few jewels out there too, but you have to look. Don't forget the many private channels. Fun stuff.


----------



## crodrules (Nov 21, 2016)

satcrazy said:


> As an after thought, there is a channel on Roku that airs older movies for free, and the catch is very do-able:
> three consecutive commercials lasting about 90 seconds at the very beginning, then 3 more half way through the movie lasting about another 90 seconds. Just enough time to get up and do whatever. Win-win.
> Perfect.
> Weather nation's channel on Roku is another winner. Better than weather channel's "interactive".


When I used to stream shows on Hulu (I had the cheaper version with commercials) I would use the commercial breaks to rest my eyes. They had a countdown timer to let you know how many seconds were left in the commercial break, and the number of commercials left. So, I could close my eyes and start counting, and have a good idea of approximately when to open my eyes again to make sure I did not miss any of the show. I wish the networks and cable channels would implement some kind of countdown timer or progress bar during commercial breaks to let you know how much time you have.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

I DVR everything with Dish, so I just skip over the ads for the most past. With so many ads on most channels these days, it would be nearly impossible to sit through all of the ads, promos, etc. to watch TV as I did years ago. There are just too many ads for me to enjoy a program.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

mwdxer said:


> I DVR everything with Dish, so I just skip over the ads for the most past. With so many ads on most channels these days, it would be nearly impossible to sit through all of the ads, promos, etc. to watch TV as I did years ago. There are just too many ads for me to enjoy a program.


Me too on DTV. I was watching something the other night that I recorded, I think it was the SyFy channel and some of their commercial times had moved all the way out to 6 minutes. An Hour and a Half movie was 2-1/2 hours with all the commercials. If I could not fast forward thru them I would not have watched that movie. I am a believer that if we pay for content we should not have it interrupted with commercials. Put a few in between movies or programs is ok if they are not too long.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

An old satellite tech I knew years ago called it "double-dipping". The channel gets paid two ways, first they sell the channel to providers and then sell ad time besides. I am nearly 69. I remember a time in the 50s, where you had a program last 28.5 minutes (30 min show), a minute of ads and 30 sec of a promo. TV was very enjoyable to watch then. No one needed to DVR anything even if the technology would have been available. But in today's world, I doubt I would even have Dish if I had to sit through all of the ads.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

jimmie57 said:


> I am a believer that if we pay for content we should not have it interrupted with commercials. Put a few in between movies or programs is ok if they are not too long.


We don't pay DISH for "content", we pay them for "reception".


----------



## STDog (Mar 22, 2007)

NYDutch said:


> We don't pay DISH for "content", we pay them for "reception".


Only half right. Part of the fee is to deliver the content. But the majority is paying for the right to view the content.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

STDog said:


> Only half right. Part of the fee is to deliver the content. But the majority is paying for the right to view the content.


Which is still not paying for the content itself.


----------



## STDog (Mar 22, 2007)

NYDutch said:


> Which is still not paying for the content itself.


Under the current copyright regime it is one in the same.

You buy a CD you don't own the content, merely the right to listen to it under certain conditions/limitations.

You buy a DVD you don't own the content. Just the right to view it under specific limits.

So you pay a fee to Dish, who forwards that to the actual content owner who grants you the right to view it under specific conditions.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

STDog said:


> Under the current copyright regime it is one in the same.
> ...
> So you pay a fee to Dish, who forwards that to the actual content owner who grants you the right to view it under specific conditions.


So you're saying that DISH pays the folks that create the program content??? Maybe we're just differing on the semantics, but as far as I know, DISH pays the folks that make the programs available for viewing, not the folks that create the content to be viewed. Indirectly, that occurs for premium channels with no advertising, but the standard commercial content is paid for by the advertisers. I'm pretty sure the folks that produce "Big Bang Theory" don't get a check from DISH every month, but the folks at the local CBS station do, and they don't pass any of it along. ;


----------



## STDog (Mar 22, 2007)

NYDutch said:


> So you're saying that DISH pays the folks that create the program content???


The networks pay to have content created using the funds from advertisers and retransmission.

Some of that content is owned by the networks, works for hire. Some the networks merely buy partial rights, like broadcast rights.

Either way the fees we (and others) pay fund content creation in part. How large a part our contributions are varies. It's most of the funding for commercial free premium networks. It's a smaller part for add funded cable nets. And an even smaller part for OTA broadcast nets, but still a significant part.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NYDutch said:


> So you're saying that DISH pays the folks that create the program content??? Maybe we're just differing on the semantics, but as far as I know, DISH pays the folks that make the programs available for viewing, not the folks that create the content to be viewed.


It depends on the content. Most channel content is indirect ... DISH is paying a channel provider for a linear channel with a certain type of content. For example, DISH pays The Weather Channel to provide weather forecasts and weather documentaries - and decided not to renew the channel a few years ago when The Weather Channel changed content. (The contract was renewed when The Weather Channel returned to acceptable content.) DISH pays the channel and the channel pays the content provider.

There is also content where DISH is explicitly paying the content provider. Sure, DISH isn't sending a check to Steven Spielberg to put his latest work on OnDemand or PPV - but DISH is paying to be able to pass that content on through their deals with content distributors.



NYDutch said:


> Indirectly, that occurs for premium channels with no advertising, but the standard commercial content is paid for by the advertisers. I'm pretty sure the folks that produce "Big Bang Theory" don't get a check from DISH every month, but the folks at the local CBS station do, and they don't pass any of it along. ;


I would not be so bold in making that statement. The fees paid to CBS (and other network) affiliates ARE passed on to the network. There have been discussions on this site about how the networks are demanding stations raise their retransmission rates and send the money back to the networks. Advertisers are not the only source of income for the networks.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

Ok,I won't belabor the issue any further, since I think we're mostly just disagreeing about semantics now. The money we pay DISH obviously gets distributed in many directions as it passes through all the various hands involved.


----------



## STDog (Mar 22, 2007)

NYDutch said:


> The money we pay DISH obviously gets distributed in many directions as it passes through all the various hands involved.


And in the end that pays for the content.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The bottom line is what we are paying DISH to receive.
The reason why our bills are so high is not the delivery, it is the content.

I am not paying DISH just for delivery like I would pay UPS, FedEX, USPS or others to deliver a package (or have someone pay them on my behalf when sending something to me). I pay them for delivered content.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

The programmers keep raising their prices. That it the reason we pay more and more. It comes down to if we want the programming, then we have to pay for it. Everything is always going up, be it registration on your car, property taxes, rent, etc. Unfortunately, the increases we get these days, the ol' pocketbook does not cover them as well.


----------



## satcrazy (Mar 16, 2011)

mwdxer said:


> True, but if you go looking, there are some apps (channels) that do not run any ads or an ad inbetween the movies/shows. (At least for now). I like the old TV shows I can find on You tube and other apps. With over 5000 channels and counting, there is nearly something for about everyone. I like a lot of the "off the wall" channels that are uploaded by colleges, bands, small cable or OTA channels that run odd ball programming. Much like the early days of the big dish. Many channels are junk, but there are quite a few jewels out there too, but you have to look. Don't forget the many private channels. Fun stuff.


How do you access "private"?


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

Do a Google search of Roku Private channels. There are hundreds. Some do not longer work, but many do. But most can be added to the Roku.


----------

