Dish Introduces $20-a-Month Streaming-TV Service 196
wyattstorch516 writes "Dish Networks has unveiled Sling TV, its streaming service for customers who don't want to subscribe to Cable or Satellite. From the article: "For $20 a month — yes, twenty dollars — you get access to a lineup of cable networks that includes TNT, TBS, CNN, Food Network, HGTV, Cartoon Network, Adult Swim, the Disney Channel, ESPN, and ESPN2. ESPN is obviously a huge get for Dish and could earn Sling TV plenty of customers all on its own. ESPN just ended another year as TV's leading cable network, and now you won't need a traditional cable package to watch it. For sports fanatics, that could prove enticing. But Dish has hinted that there may be limits on watching ESPN on mobile thanks to red tape from existing deals between the network and Verizon."
Trademark foul... (Score:3)
Isn't "Sling" somebody else's trademark for a like product?
Re:Trademark foul... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because in order to use a Sling Box to stream those channels, you need to have a cable/satellite service to provide the content. This service streams the channels so you don't have to subscribe to a traditional cable or satellite provider at a rate most likely higher than $20 a month.
It's possible that this service isn't better than other options for some viewers. It may be exactly what others are looking for. It's never a bad thing to have multiple options, especially in an sector that's typically a mono
Excuse me while I blow a kiss (Score:3, Funny)
To say goodbye to Comcast. I have been caught with the problem of family members who wanted those certain networks.
Now...bwahahaha.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this thing kind of like Netflix, but worse and more expensive?
Re: (Score:2)
Except that it has current content, which Netflix does not have. But the content this new service has is only a few channels. Yes they're popular channels, but I don't want any of them myself.
The problem is that $20 is too much for a single channel, so if you have 5 shows you like to watch and they're all part of different bundles then you end up paying more than you would with cable potentially. Netflix has a good price point; cheap enough that you put up with the few things you can't get and the fact t
Re: (Score:2)
But, if you are *only* watching Netflix, as things come down the pipe, they are new to you...so, does it really make a difference?
I rarely go see a movie in a theater upon release. I wait until they come out on bluray or netflix, so they are new to me, although they have been out for awhile previously.
I've never understood people that have to see it first thing as it is
Re: (Score:2)
That's a pretty good deal since you are being raped on programming costs from cable or fios.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Netflix doesn't have ESPN.
That's not a bug, it's a feature!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Excuse me while I blow a kiss (Score:4, Insightful)
This is us vs the in-laws. We cut cable years ago and are fine with netflix and hulu (and Plex streaming our massive DVD collection)
When the inlaws come over, they are floored at the concept that we cannot watch sports. We really don't care to, but that does not figure in to their calculations.
Re: (Score:2)
So?
If they want all of the comforts of their own home, perhaps they should not leave it.
Re: (Score:2)
My view is Cable Internet + Netflix and Hulu are good enough, and any family members that want more should pay for it themselves or split the cost of the additional fees.
And how much WITHOUT ESPN? (Score:3)
I for one resent paying for very expensive programming that I never watch.
Re:And how much WITHOUT ESPN? (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand your desire for a la carte programming, but live sports is what stops a *lot* of people from cutting the cord and just going to Hulu, Netflix, Prime, or SomeOtherService.
Getting ESPN is a Big Hairy Deal for cord cutters, and it's the title of the article. Your only other option was to hope that your cable provider let you tune into ESPNU or similar from your IP range...or to pirate your college sports.
You can think of this as ESPN is $20 a la carte, and includes some free channels with it :)
What kept me from cord cutting (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If Cox's economy gets you CBS/NBC/FOX/ABC (and, I'm pretty sure it does), then yes, ESPN pretty much seals the deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't you watch full episodes at foodnetwork.com these days?
Re: (Score:2)
And ESPN's content on the service is probably just full episodes of produced programming, not live coverage of sports.
Re: (Score:3)
2. We're already paying for the games by watching the damn advertisements, so why should we have to pay for ESPN? Remove the ads and put on a radio announcer instead of the "color commentary" announcers and I'll gladly pay $5/game (= about $60/year to ESPN = $5/mo).
Just because you are paying something by watching advertisements, does not mean you are paying for it in full. Think of it more like the advertising is subsidizing part of your cable bill, not paying it in full.
Re: (Score:3)
It would probably be about $10/month. ESPN is the most expensive channel to license for cable providers.
Re: (Score:2)
Al-a-cart is currently illegal due to the structuring content providers talked the FCC into years ago. It's a very complicated topic but basically the production people like Viacom have pushed the line so far that most TV is complete and utter garbage today and is why your cable bill can exceed $200/month easily. It's so far beyond reasonable you now have cable and satalite providers actually dropping entire networks. Dish, for example currently doesn't have any of Fox and is just displaying a banner "Fox r
Not Illegal (Score:4, Informative)
From the FCC:
Are cable systems required to offer "a la carte" and pay-per-view channels?
No, but they may choose to offer channels on a stand-alone basis ("a la carte") or as a pay-per-view channel. Commission rules also prohibit cable systems from requiring customers to subscribe to any tiers beyond the basic tier in order to have access to a la carte channels or pay-per-view channels offered by the system.
'Out your ass' is not a legitimate source.
Re:And how much WITHOUT ESPN? (Score:5, Informative)
Al-a-cart is currently illegal due to the structuring content providers talked the FCC into years ago.
A la carte is now and always has been legal. The cable providers don't offer it because they sign contracts with the content owners which make it unprofitable (they can provide channels a la carte, but if someone picks Disney Kids, the cable company must pay Disney for ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN West, ESPN 7, etc. But there's nothing legally or contractually preventing the cable company from selling Disney Kids a la carte. It's a financial model problem, not a legal or contractual one.
Re:And how much WITHOUT ESPN? (Score:4, Interesting)
Arguing that the contract requires they purchase unrelated channels to get a single channel is not contract related is a bunch of horseshit. It IS a contractual problem, because the content providers refuse to sell channels outside bundles which essentially forces bundling on the provider.
Personally I believe this is a regulatory action the government should take, they should make it illegal to force bundle channels to providers and require that they sell channels to all providers on equal terms and without bias. There should be a cost to that government granted monopoly and one of them should be that they can't discriminate against delivery methods or require the purchase of entire channel catalogs to get a single channel. We've given these companies the ability to destroy competing delivery services which has resulted in monopoly collusion between content creators and distributors. This monopoly should be broken, and laws should be passed to prevent it from ever happening again.
I personally don't believe distribution companies (ie cable & sat companies, netflix, etc) should be able to own content and that allowing that to happen has resulted in a significant portion of the last decades price increases for content.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, separate is the rumour (or threats) that if a cable company were to successfully a la carte channels, the content owners would refuse to sell them content on the next contract renewal. Though in practice, that's never been tested.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what "a commercial problem" is. Is it about advertising? Because I've never encountered "a commercial problem," as far as I know.
Re: (Score:2)
which means ESPN is forcing Dish to broadcast its old channels in the old tiered system... and not allowing them to show ESPN (For $7/month or whatever) without also including ESPN Classic at the very same price in the same tier
And you forgot that non-sports watchers have to have both channels just to get access to the Disney Channel.
Re: (Score:2)
How much without ESPN? How much with BBC America? That is, BBC America without 30 minutes of commercials in a 60 minute program? Because I am paying for it.
I really just want A La Carte. Tell me what each "channel" costs and let me pick the ones I want. I might even end up paying more than $20. And I won't pay for my local channels, I can get those OTA for free already; and better quality in most cases than what cable or satellite will deliver to boot.
Re: (Score:2)
I sort of want something in the middle. A sort of Chinese restaurant menu choice. 3 channels from column A, 3 from column B, option to substitute steamed rice for fried rice.
Problem is that services today that give you just one episode of a show you may have missed are too expensive, and the price for a "season" of a show are also too expensive. Especially if the show was originally broadcast over the air. Plus there must be a DVR option of some sort if the shows are going to vanish after a short period
Re: (Score:2)
say I want Doctor Who, Walking Dead, Big Bang Theory, and Phineus and Ferb, and each of those requires a separate subscription of $10-20, then I end up paying more than what I did when I was a satellite subscriber.
I think iTunes already does this for many shows. You can buy a season bundle (works out to over $2/episode) and get access to the episodes as they air.
Re:And how much WITHOUT ESPN? (Score:5, Interesting)
I will sign up for any option that lets me not pay for sports. fuck the sports tax.
Re: (Score:2)
I would imagine ESPN is charging Dish at LEAST $20/mo per subscriber, and Dish is willing to eat that as a cost of being first out of the gate for internet ESPN cord cutter subscribers. The rest is free, really.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have MORE with Netflix now than I had with satellite. However it is not the same content as with cable. I have to delay some shows for a year and give up another favorite show, but in return I've gotten lots of stuff that is completely new to me that I didn't see when it was new (bing watching Breaking Bad or Dollhouse), lots of older programs as well (all of the real Mission Impossible), lots of movies, etc. And that's without their DVD service that I could use if I wanted to. Plus it's all high defi
Re: (Score:2)
If you aren't terribly impatient, Netflix can displace a large number of channels including some that are in this new Dish bundle. The only thing this bundle gets you is the new stuff that you can already get PPV. It might even be cheaper as PPV.
Is what's in that bundle worth $20 per month? Is it worth $20 per month to some randomly selected user?
Very uncertain...
Delivery medium (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What is so interesting about this netflix, hulu, and the like is that the customer is no longer paying for the delivery of the goods :: just the goods themselves.
What do you mean? Netflix and Hulu give away free broadband ISP connectivity to their customers? And Netflix and Hulu have free massive pipelines and distributed hosting to the internet? Man, that's pretty cool. Just because Netflix doesn't directly own the wires between the content and your house like ye olde cable companies doesn't mean that the customer is not paying for the delivery of the goods.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure he meant that the customer isn't paying one lump sum to one company for both the delivery of goods and for the goods themselves.
One of the arguments that often comes up over cable prices is that they have to pay to put all the cables in place and maintain them. For satellite, they had to pay boatloads to put a satellite in orbit. This makes somewhat of a separation between the two.
I'm pretty confused about why Dish would be the one doing this though. Adding dish subscribers doesn't cost them
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure he meant that the customer isn't paying one lump sum to one company for both the delivery of goods and for the goods themselves.
One of the arguments that often comes up over cable prices is that they have to pay to put all the cables in place and maintain them. For satellite, they had to pay boatloads to put a satellite in orbit. This makes somewhat of a separation between the two.
I'm pretty confused about why Dish would be the one doing this though. Adding dish subscribers doesn't cost them anything really (past licensing fees)... why not just lower the cost of that? I know its quite different but, if anything, the steaming service is more flexible and will cost them more for the delivery. The licensing rules/laws/agreements must be super fucked up.
Building and launching a satellite is a billion-dollar capital cost, that has to be amortized over the life of the satellite. For the same money over the next few years, they can gradually roll out a streaming service without having to put up all that capital in one chunk. Plus, if they stop using satellites, they can knock out the people pirating their signal.
Re: (Score:3)
"..customer is no longer paying for the delivery of the goods.."
yes we are. We pay for them to have an internet service, a website, and everything else you need to deliver the goods.
Paid in Bitcoin only! (Score:2)
I wholeheartedly approve of it.
ESPN (Score:4, Interesting)
ESPN is the reason I cancelled Dish in the first place. It's the most costly channel in their lineup and I got sick of subsizing it. Had they chosen better, cheaper channels, I would have considered it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I were genuinely interested in a sport, I would want something dedicated to that sport/league and not run through the filter of some other middle man. "but sports" is a poor reason to put up with ESPN. It's time that this stuff got decoupled from monopolistic middle men.
Besides. A lot of "event sports" is shown on OTA broadcast anyways.
Again, the value of cable for "but sports" goes way beyond putting up with ESPN as a monopolistic middle man. Unfettered on demand streaming has even more potential for sp
Depends (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
commercials = FAIL (Score:3, Interesting)
Total FAIL. It is streaming only, no DVR. That means you will happily be forced to watch commercials. I wouldn't even take the service if it were free.
Re:commercials = FAIL (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, they are all already out of business because of DVR's on cable and satellite services? I think not. The cable and satellite companies DO pay for access to the channels (and quite a bit, at that). And even with ability to fast forward through commercials, many people (myself included) still see things and stop and play interesting/relevant commercials.
I am neither clueless nor cheap. I know exactly how this stuff works and I will not pay any price for content which forces commercial viewing. And if that means I have to pay more for access to the channels... fine. So how is that clueless or cheap?
I am certainly not alone in this feeling. The genie is out of the bag, and many of us will never go back. Next step- I want to pay for only the channels I want/watch. I am tired of subsidizing extremely expensive and totally uninteresting sports channels and other such nonsense.
Re: (Score:3)
This happens all the time, it's just not as visible as to the reasons. Highly rated shows with loyal fan bases find out their favorite show is gone mid-season and replaced with a reality show. The media industry is not the sort of devil you need to stay loyal to because it's most definitely not loyal to you.
Times change. The Home Shopping Network may have to figure out a new way to make money. It is NOT our job as consumers to subsidize companies like they were charities, corporations need to learn to t
Re:commercials = FAIL (Score:4, Insightful)
The amount that goes to service and the amount that goes to the actual content provider are not divided so neatly into that fee structure. Advertising most definitely does not cover $100/month of the cost for the majority of people. The cost to the content provider comes out of part of that $20, and possibly some comes from the commercials. The biggest reason for commercials is as it always has been with pay TV: it's an easy way to get some extra revenue.
When cable TV was new part of the rationale given by marketing and word of mouth is that you don't have to put up with commercials. And indeed in the early days that was true, you only got commercials for those programs that were rebroadcast (not counting interstitial promotions for their own upcoming shows and the like). Ie, MTV was music videos all day and all night with the occasional commentary and news from "VJs". Even up until recently there were channels still like this, such as IFC or AMC not interrupting movies with ads. However it was not long until cable companies realized they could double dip and get subscription fees plus advertisement dollars, with only "premium" channels having fewer ads.
Can I ger a package (Score:2)
without ESPN? Please? It's really for people who like to here other people spout shit they tried really hard to fill time with. It's actual information can be smmed up in a website. I don't know why I need to subsidize a profit making network.
Of course, I have no idea why people tune in to here athletes talk.
Hey, football fans! This is what the QB is going to say:
If it was a hard game or loss, he will take the blame.
If it is a win, he will praise the line.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
without ESPN?
Yes. Hulu.
Re: (Score:2)
Every time I look at things like Hulu I find virtually none of the programs that I typically like to watch. News? Nada. Have to stream it elsewhere if I can find it. Various Discovery/Science/History channels? Nothing that I want to watch. Documentaries? Minimal, and nothing of interest. Shows like Stewart/Colbert? Nope - have to go directly to comedycentral to get that.
Here is what I don't watch. Movies, sitcoms, reality TV, cop/csi or any other drama. Don't watch sports, don't watch home shoppi
More commercials (Score:2, Insightful)
Not paying to watch commercials, sorry.
A La Cartel (Score:2)
Imagine a world where the cable company bought all the restaurant chains. Meals are no longer for sale! If you want to eat dinner at Chili's, just sign up for an expensive monthly service providing all-you-can-eat food at 37 chains all around town.
What's that, you only want to eat out occasionally at one or two restaurants? That's your choice but the price is the same.
Oh, did I mention that each meal will be interrupted 2-3 times for several minutes of pitches from various unrelated businesses? Don't worry,
Can I leave out ESPN and CNN ? (Score:3)
Yet another? (Score:2)
Hmm? One of the things I've never actually managed to understand is, why do people want to pay for access to up to hundreds of tv channels, all showing near-identical programmes, none of which are really worth your time, and of which you are only ever going to watch a few any way? Perhaps I see it this way because I live in UK, where I can see some 5 - 10 actual tv channels on FreeView, and still only manage to find between 0 and 1 at any time that I want to watch. I have no need for chat shows, reality tv,
ESPN as a motivator (Score:2)
Re:Lawsuits already in progress (Score:5, Informative)
Aereo didn't get the right licensing agreements with the local broadcasters... Dish already has the right contact list from its DBS business.
Re: (Score:3)
Dish already has the right contact list from its DBS business.
Dish may have the "contact list", but certainly it does not yet have the rights to stream broadcast television stations on the Internet without entering into an agreement with those stations (which likely would mean additional retransmission fees).
Of course you can already watch broadcast stations for free over the air in actual HD quality, as opposed to the very likely lower quality streaming unless you can keep a 10 Mbps H.264 stream going cont
Re: (Score:3)
You can, as a Dish subscriber, view any channel right now over the Internet.
As a "Dish subscriber" you can stream on authenticated devices, but not as a "Sling TV subscriber". That would require another contract between Dish and content providers.
Maybe you didn't read it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Dish is already a provider. And pays the partner networks when online streaming like they do for satellite broadcast. They are only streaming networks that have agreed to the arrangement, which explains the limited selection.
Now what is likely to happen, is that cable companies (Comcast & Time Warner) will fight it. Because Dish customers are likely to be streaming over internet-only cable services in some regions where DSL is not practical. (hell, when is DSL ever practical?)
Re:Maybe you didn't read it? (Score:5, Insightful)
(hell, when is DSL ever practical?)
I'm streaming over VDSL. Not as fast as comcast but the advantage is that is not comcast.
Re:Maybe you didn't read it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
My big compliant is upstream speeds are not offered above 1.5. At least it's not Comcast.
Lawsuits already in progress (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
People are sick of paying their cable company $100/mo for TV.
So let's pay $20/mo to 3-5 different places, then $50/mo for some form of internet (DSL, Cable, Fibre). Yikes!
Re: (Score:2)
Do you do anything on the Internet besides stare slack-jawed at videos? If so, you'll still need to pay for Internet access, even if you're getting cable or dish TV. So saying "then $50/mo for some form of internet" seems a bit disingenuous.
As for me and my family, we'd be happy to pay $20/mo to a couple of places that provide programming we actually care to watch, rather than paying $100+/mo to TWC for an array of several hundred channels, of which we watch perhaps five, for an hour or two a day on average
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll warn you that TWC is like most providers. They will charge you though the nose for a "dry" internet connection (i.e. when you only have internet service with them). The delta between internet and TV with internet is just about $20 and add phone for another $10 (with per/min charges). Add a few dollars for the cable box and this deal will only be a small gain over an internet connection and TV.
Verizon FIOS is worse than that. They charge me over $100/month for 25/25 net only. If I added their premier TV service, I'd be at $140 or so with taxes and equipment for 2 TV's and they'd bump my internet speed to 50/50.
Where I get where this idea is headed and I would really like to just pay for what I need, I'm still money ahead to go with the full service from Verizon..
Re: (Score:2)
Internet only service through Comcast is still relatively affordable, because you can avoid a lot of the hidden charges that they do with digital cable service.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well to be honest, I have a business contract, so I'm insulated from a lot of that nonsense.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm betting that with all the crap they're cramming onto the TV side of the bill we'll still come out well ahead. And that's without considering the "make me an offer to keep me from going over to [cough] DSL" negotiations.
Not that DSL is a serious competitor around here -- it seems to give about 1/5 the bandwidth for about 80% of the price -- but I don't have to let them know that I care about that.
The last straw for us was the $2.75 sports surcharge. The only sports broadcasts we've ever tuned in are on t
Re: (Score:2)
Comcast was a nightmare, we would end up with some services on the business side and some on a local provider side (whatever that means) even though they were all ordered at the same time. It was hell to call and get transferred around. They also liked to reset our routers periodically even though they
Re: (Score:3)
They will charge you though the nose for a "dry" internet connection (i.e. when you only have internet service with them). The delta between internet and TV with internet is just about $20 and add phone for another $10 (with per/min charges). Add a few dollars for the cable box and this deal will only be a small gain over an internet connection and TV.
Perhaps so, but I have TWC in NY and pay just $34.99/month for a 50/5 connection (granted, I think it is rated lower but if you use a docsis 3.0 modem on an otherwise slower priced connection, you get higher speeds) and just use a few shared accounts for netflix/hbo go/nimble tv/amazon/WatchESPN all on a Roku3 that come to something like $10-15/month
perhaps doing this is somewhat against the TOS of those services, but last time I checked, TWC bundling prices is against the terms of service of the federal
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you accept their terms without negotiating. We have TWC for Internet only and pay a rate similar to what we paid when we were getting the bundled discount. You can get it but you have to ask for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I've asked... Problem was I couldn't switch because of the logistics of moving my wife off of their E-mail service so I really couldn't afford to get my bluff called when I threatened to cancel my service. You have to be ready to really cancel before they will come off the "you pay the advertised rate" position.
I am transitioning her to a non-ISP specific E-mail address right now, so once we have her and her friends used to the new address I can call and *really* be ready to cancel the service should
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Interesting (Score:2)
I wonder at what price point NHL and MLB would sell anywhere, any device access with no blackouts. Or even lock it to a single team.
All I would need besides OTA TV is my Blues and my Cardinals.
Re: (Score:2)
If they'd stop selling exclusive broadcast rights (at least by country), you'd have a chance of that. And since the upcoming events for the foreseeable future have already been sold, you'd have to wait a while even if they did strike a deal.
Re:Interesting (Score:4, Funny)
Do you do anything on the Internet besides stare slack-jawed at videos?
I mostly post on ./ at work.
Re: (Score:2)
rather than paying $100+/mo to TWC for an array of several hundred channels
The Weather Channel has hundreds of channels now? /badjoke
Re: (Score:3)
and wait for comcast/cable provider to bundle TV for free for their now 200$ per month internet
Re: (Score:3)
Thankfully Canada introduced UBB (Usage Based Billing) to prevent stuff like this from taking off here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I... [wikipedia.org]
How long until everyone else adopts UBB to thwart the offerings from competitors?
(Yes, i know there are companies offering unlimited access and i have my service with one of them).
Looks like even "Rogers" (early UBB adopter) has started offering "unlimited" plans as an add-on.
Odd, they said they needed to charge for usage as a small number of customers were "hogging" all th
I would pay 5x as much (Score:3)
So let's pay $20/mo to 3-5 different places
Works for me when the difference is having to watch a show when broadcast vs. at any time I like without having to remember (or know) to record it.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha, and I thought my $70 satellite was getting too expensive... We really do need some type of way to get just the channels we want instead of a bundle that has 1 thing we want and 12 things we'll never touch. Yes there is ala-carte of buying just one episode or one season, but those are overpriced in my view especially for shows that originally broadcast for free.
Re: (Score:3)
I can't wait to call Comcast.
Careful... You will still need internet to stream this and unless you live in googleland where fiber abounds and fast internet connections are cheep (where is that exactly?) you will still need to pay Comcast for an internet connection. Get ready to be taken advantage of. Buying just internet service can get expensive beyond what you now see on your Comcast bill for that "package" deal you get on internet. Expect them to bump that up if you don't buy TV from them.
For me, the differential between my sing
Re: (Score:2)
If that's the case you're simply doing it wrong.
Here is how you do it right: Call them up. Tell them that you want to cancel. When they ask why, tell them that $competitor is offering you a better deal.
They will balk and scriptedly explain that $competitor's service is inferior.
Ignore this and
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Then no deal. There, I said it. Now you all can mod me down to hell if you want. I don't care. Fox News is number one on cable for a reason, and most of you will never understand that reason.
It's the same reason that Discovery and the History Channel are popular -- it's great entertainment. In the case of Fox News, it's all about watching political commentators take extreme positions and make a series of outlandish claims and statements about "socialists" and "liberals" without realizing that the mainstream political landscape in your country is completely right-wing.
Re: (Score:3)
They were going to offer the history channel, got the package bundle all ready to go and everything, except ALIENS.
Re: (Score:2)
There's really no discovery left on the Discovery channel, the the History channel is all about goofy stuff now like ancient aliens and Nazi conspiracies. Never watched that much Science channel but the few times it didn't seem that special though better than average (I like How Its Made though, it's on netflix). Most of cable has really declined badly, it's all about satisfying the hordes who don't like to think.
Yes it has no Fox News but then again it was never intended to supply all channels. Just a s
Re:No Fox News channel? (Score:5, Funny)
Masochism?
Re: (Score:2)