Could you live with only a dozen channels?
- Thread starter inazsully
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 81
- Views 9K
-
Server Issues. We are very aware that there have been system issues the past few days. In troubleshooting the system, it has been determined that the issue is at our provider and is hardware related. The provider was going to move us to a new server, however we are now told by the provider the issue is at the data center in St. Louis. They have offered to move us to a different datacenter on the East Coast or West Coast, however at this time we have declined the move to a different data center as it would affect the speed of connecting to about half our members.
We are waiting for more information from our provider, however we are trying to ride this out to stay in the same data center, so that when the server is fixed all users in the US will get the fastest connection possible.
If after some time the issue is not resolved we will be forced to move to another data center, if this happens there will be down time, as they will need to transfer everything to the new server and we will need to update the DNS and other settings for the new IP address of the new server. If we have to do this, the time it will take to move will be out of our hands.
We are going to try our best to weather through this, so we thank you in advance if you encounter any issues.
Sorry for the issue!
CLICK THE X IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER OF THE BOX TO DISMISS THIS MESSAGE
There's one thing I've never understood. Perhaps one of the guys who always say that it would be just as expensive as what we do now can explain it to me.
If a channel gets let's say $1.85 as it's slice of the pie from being in a package, why would they need more than $1.85 for that same channel if offered A la Carte? This makes no sense to me. In fact, the channel would likely be getting more eyeballs per A la Carte viewer because they would know that those are the people who chose them.
The only reasoning that I can figure when that assertion is made, is that it's being assumed that less people would have that channel. I suppose that's true. But isn't that admitting that they are currently taking money from viewers that they really don't have?
Our current system makes it where people who watch 20 different channels are getting some of their bill paid by the folks who only watch 3 channels. So what the guys who say "it will cost more" are ignoring, is the possibility that it may only be higher for the 20 channel folks, but actually be cheaper for the 3 channel folks.
Oh, and BTW, I agree that it will never happen. But if it did, count me in with the ones who couldn't get the number up to 12.
Cheers
If a channel gets let's say $1.85 as it's slice of the pie from being in a package, why would they need more than $1.85 for that same channel if offered A la Carte? This makes no sense to me. In fact, the channel would likely be getting more eyeballs per A la Carte viewer because they would know that those are the people who chose them.
The only reasoning that I can figure when that assertion is made, is that it's being assumed that less people would have that channel. I suppose that's true. But isn't that admitting that they are currently taking money from viewers that they really don't have?
Our current system makes it where people who watch 20 different channels are getting some of their bill paid by the folks who only watch 3 channels. So what the guys who say "it will cost more" are ignoring, is the possibility that it may only be higher for the 20 channel folks, but actually be cheaper for the 3 channel folks.
Oh, and BTW, I agree that it will never happen. But if it did, count me in with the ones who couldn't get the number up to 12.
Cheers
pabeader said:Actually, when it comes to this, I am an id10t. I'm too lazy to set up a favorite list that only includes the channels I want. and I hate scrolling through all the riff-raff. Plus the meer existance of things like shopping channels and radio channels, gets under my skin. If we were given the option to choose what channels we wanted to view, and those that don't get enough viewer support to stay in existance, die, it would free up bandwidth for better PQ and other channels that people would like. Like Fear.net
also, i have been accused of picking an unconventional position, just to see what other folks think...
A lot of those religious channels can go. The false doctrines many of them present are far more dangerous and harmful than some things on TV. I'm guessing most of those probably PAY DISH to be on. Unlike you, I'll work a favorites list that just cleans out the shopping and religion.
Probably Yes
1. USA
2. TNT
3. Scifi
4. BBC America
5. Food
6. Cooking
7. History
8. Discovery,
9. TLC
10. Nick
11. Toon
12 Disnney
My kids would revolt without the last three
Then Off Air for my Locals in HD.
1. USA
2. TNT
3. Scifi
4. BBC America
5. Food
6. Cooking
7. History
8. Discovery,
9. TLC
10. Nick
11. Toon
12 Disnney
My kids would revolt without the last three
Then Off Air for my Locals in HD.
LOL, you should go check out some of the comments in the AMC poll thread.
open forums..............................lot of critics, not much discretion
Just many? Is there a legit one? More dangerous and harmful than other things on TV? What on tv is more harmful than the stuff they peddle on these salvation per view channels?
pabeader said:Actually, when it comes to this, I am an id10t. I'm too lazy to set up a favorite list that only includes the channels I want. and I hate scrolling through all the riff-raff. Plus the meer existance of things like shopping channels and radio channels, gets under my skin. If we were given the option to choose what channels we wanted to view, and those that don't get enough viewer support to stay in existance, die, it would free up bandwidth for better PQ and other channels that people would like. Like Fear.net
also, i have been accused of picking an unconventional position, just to see what other folks think...
I have made similar points on another thread. If a channel is worth having it should be able to stand on its own. As it is we have no control and the pushers ie service providers and content owners don't want us to.
As for me ours would be
Locals +
History
HGTV
DIY
SyFy
A&E
BBCA
Disney (one is plenty)
Toon (again one is plenty)
FoxNews
Discovery
Food
Spike (just to make it 12)
Interesting. Haven't seen n e one anxious to watch HSN or Auction or Weather Channel for that matter. As it is with Netflix, VUDU and the like pay tv may shortly become superfluous in my house. We can wait til its online. Don't watch most shows when they r new anyway.
Been on the welcome pack for the last couple of months. It has been more than sufficient for our needs which are not much. Yes I could get by with a 12 channel package or less, but price is a major factor. I could afford to pay $100 a month for a much better package like AT 250 with a hopper/joeys, but it ain't happening here. TV is not that important in this house. If I could choose 12 channels of my choice for $25-$30 a month I might go for something like that, but refuse to jump on the bandwagon of high prices for the same ole stuff that can be watched on netflix or downloaded off the internet.
Equipment fees are a whole different topic & a huge player in monthly fees. I would personally like to know what ever happened to 1 TV households. Nobody including myself has just 1 TV anymore. Our life styles and wallets have dictated every move we make. I only have 1 hdtv in the house & that is intentional, the other 2 are standard and have better pictures on standard TV than standard TV on hdtv's. I ain't spending the money on something that's not broke & would be worse on new TV's without going HD & more monthly fees. It is an uphill spending spree that will never end unless folks just refuse to pay, many won't & will continue to pay & grow old in front of the TV & spend hard earned money on something with no return.
Personally I could make do with 12 channels.Although my wifes viewing habits are somewhat different than mine,add to the fact we now have a grandkid who is here quite often.With all that considered 12 wouldn't cut it.20-25 would be very doable.
Could I get by with 12 channels? Yes. Would I want to? HELL NO! This A La Carte crap gets old. I almost wish a company started up and only offered A La Carte. That way you could all switch. I'm sure some would be happy but I'll bet a lot come crawling back after realizing how little they are getting for their money. Everyone thinks they are going to save sooo much but I don't see it happening.
Whoa Scherrman! Nobody thinks a-la-cart is going to happen. We all know the reality of that is crap. The impossibility of a-la-cart is pretty much universally accepted here. No reason to have a stroke. The question is just messin around with wondering what channels we consider so useless we would never miss them. It was interesting to see what I was left with when I pared away these almost never watched channels. Paring down to 12 channels is like wondering what I would do if I won the lottery. I know I never will but that doesn't keep me from wondering WHAT IF.
Here's an interesting question. Why is Al-A-Carte not already a reality? As you can see from just a few of our lists and comments. We don't watch the crap channels. A number of us don't even have them in our guides. But the ad folks get money for us anyway. Isn't there a conflict there? It's very easy for Dish to know what we actually watch and if they reported that at the nego. table, things might be different.
Anony55 said:
Just a few points:
1. Most channels are not independent: several companies own a whole bunch of channels each, and it's in their best interest to sell the channels in bundles. Why can't you order just one HBO channel? Because HBO would lose revenues if you did.
2. There is no way satellite or cable companies will start charging less money (on average) from their customers. So, don't expect that average TV bill would go down with a la carte. It's not going to happen. Sure, some could benefit more than others, but on average, with a la carte we would end up paying more for fewer channels.
3. Keep in mind, that for satellite and cable companies, it doesn't cost more to deliver additional channels to us. They deliver all of the channels to our receivers anyway, we are just not allowed to watch some of them. So the goal of satellite and cable companies and the content owners too is not to reduce the number of channels we watch and to charge more for specific channels, but rather to maximize the total revenues. Ideally, they would want to give us all the channels that they have and charge us the highest possible monthly fee.
4. A la carte would probably kill less popular independent and niche channels - they wouldn't even have a chance. With a la carte, only channels targeted at average taste of the crowd would survive, unless the channels are bundled. And I don't think that would be a good thing, as our tastes are diverse and almost everyone can find him/herself in minority someday.
So, back to the original question of this thread: could I live with 12 channels? Sure I could! But why would I? Especially if Dish is likely to charge me about the same amount of money in monthly fees as I am paying now for 200 or 250 channels.
Still remember the days when my cable system in Jersey had 35 channels, including the NYC and some of the Philadelphia channels. About 90 plus % of the channels actually had stuff worth watching.
