Update Friday, October 29: It seems that FOX and DISH have settled things, because earlier today I noticed FX was back, and then finally I was able to come online and it's confirmed FOX and DISH have reached an agreement. However, since money amounts weren't mentioned I'm still not sure whether or not the bill will go up because of this agreement. I hope not, cause I like having my cake and eating it too.

So, the FOX/DISH dispute that I gripped about several entries ago still hasn't left my mind, but not for the reasons you might think though.

Do I want to lose FOX? No, not really. Will I switch to DirectTV or back to cable if FOX is pulled from DISH? No. But that's really not the point of my ramblings here.
(Sadly, with FOX I couldn't even go back to an antenna, because unless things have changed a lot more from back in the day then I doubt I could watch FOX with an antenna, because it was really hit/miss back in the day, mostly miss, so I was never truly able to watch FOX on a regular bases until cable came along. The rest of the nets, except possibly the CW, would be fine. There was no WB/CW back in my antenna days to know for sure how strong a signal I might get from the CW if I had to go back an an antenna.)

In my original post on the subject I said that FOX was asking for more then all the other broadcast networks combined (that may not be completely true, but the figures I had at the time suggested that), and at the time I could see FOX believing it was worth more, because many of it's shows (not all) get more demo viewers which means they are worth more to advertisers.

Then it hit me, in a situation like this a cable/satellite company would probably be more like Showtime/HBO/etcs. caring more for overall viewers then advertiser coveted viewers. Seriously, Showtime/HBO/etcs. don't care how old their viewers are because they make money from anyone/everyone who signs up to watch their stuff so they aren't reliant on money from advertisers. And in that way cable/satellite providers are probably more like that. Cable/satellite providers make money from anyone/everyone who signs up for their service, not from the advertisers on the networks who (advertisers) only want (to pay for) younger viewers.

If I'm right about this, then to cable/satellite providers CBS is probably worth the most to them, because old skewing or not (and quality or programming aside) lots and lots of people watch CBS, and overall none of the other networks draw quite as many overall viewers as CBS.

Still even all that aside, FOX might should worry a bit, because apparently the loss of FX (and those sports channels) that DISH lost awhile back clearly hasn't hurt DISH all that much, because FX and those channels still aren't back, and I think if DISH was losing business because of their loss they'd probably be back at the table (so to speak) trying to get them back. Sure, losing the FOX broadcast network might hurt DISH a little worse, but it might not either.
(Honestly, if I'm right about all this, and not saying I am, but if I am then (sadly) losing FOX News would probably hurt DISH more then losing the FOX broadcast channel.)