Dish and Disney

[Juan]

Bingo. Back in the day (around 1996) i had to pay $10 a month for Sportschannel the then home of the Mets.... With inflation it would be double now. The next year they moved it to a basic channel for about $1.50 for everyone.... These folks will never allow ESPN to be on a separate tier. Their revenues would plunge....

I miss the old old days when every game was on WOR channel 9

 

[rapidturtle]

The problem is there are now a gazillion niche channels as each media company has to have a sports channel, 3 or 4 kids channels, a channel to show the repeats of their more popular shows, a news channel and so on. They are still getting advertising dollars, but they have diminished and fragmented their viewership. Instead of actually scheduling their shows on a couple of channels and drawing lots of viewers to those channels, it is getting to the point that every show has it's own channel and you have marathons each day of the same shows over and over again in 4 or 5 hr blocks with a few hours of paid programming thrown in and only a fraction of the viewership. Do we really need 4 or 5 kids channels from Disney or 4 or 5 different versions of Mtv/Vh1 and Cmt? Did we really need Cloo and Chiller just to see repeats of USA and Syfy shows

I agree with you. We really don't need all of these channels. I know that my family watches at most 15 channels. I would say that 75% of that is the major networks. This gets into the whole ala cart debate, and the fact that it will never happen, as you mentioned all of the niche channels would never survive on the few people that watch them.
I know a lot of people say that they don't want the sports channels, but there are a lot of sports fanatics that can do without channels like Oprah and Lifetime. We downgraded from the 200 pack, down to the 120 pack, and don't feel as though we lost anything at all. I guess we didn't watch any of the extra channels that the 200 pack was giving us.

 

[dare2be]

Apparently the media companies feel that we do need all these channels, as they keep buying up and merging with more and more of them.

 

[Scherrman]

The reason the companies feel that you need all these channels is because people keep asking for them. Go back and read the threads on here over the years and you see plenty of threads from people that want more channels. Everyone wants more but doesn't want to pay for it, well, everyone wants the channels they want and don't want to pay for the others. No matter what you are going to be paying more for what you want to watch.

 

[KAB]

;

The reason the companies feel that you need all these channels is because people keep asking for them.

Apparently, no one wants Fearnet HD.

 

[MikeD-C05]

We use to do quite nice with all the programming coming on the big 3 networks. And in St.Louis , when I was a kid, we had Channel 30 uhf which was like Sci-fi used to be, with old series, Horror movies etc. Then in the late 70's we got cable at my house and we got HBO and Showtime -just 2 channels back then. In 1996 we got Primestar satellite,followed by DISH in 97 and we have stayed with them every since. My bill has continued to grow every other year or so. I used to pay $69.99 for AEP with DISH back in 2000 and now would cost me $40.00 more today to get the same pack ,& that doesn't even include the Plat pack-now the Blockbuster movie pass. Don't even get me started on all the charge it because we can FEES, that DISH comes up with, that add even MORE to my bill . My main point is that all the same programming is out there ,but now fragmented and spread out over 100 redundant cable channels that inflate my monthly bill. I say let the free market set the level out there . Offer the channels ala cart or by theme packs and let the public make the choice. If some channels go out of business, then so be it. I can get by without ESPN , RSNs or even OWN, Oxyen, We,LIFETIME/Lifetime Movies. Oprah can go suck it as far as I'm concerned and so can DISNEY and ESPN and all the Battered Bitch -Hate men movie channels.

 

[kcburk]

We downgraded from the 200 pack, down to the 120 pack, and don't feel as though we lost anything at all. I guess we didn't watch any of the extra channels that the 200 pack was giving us.

And DISH should take a hint here. There are quite a few of us out here who have no need for the higher tier rate packages. They're full of channels noone's watching. What a waist of spectrum, bandwidth, or whatever.

 

[kcburk]

Apparently the media companies feel that we do need all these channels, as they keep buying up and merging with more and more of them.

They have to justify their existence.

 

[Tampa8]

And DISH should take a hint here. There are quite a few of us out here who have no need for the higher tier rate packages. They're full of channels noone's watching. What a waist of spectrum, bandwidth, or whatever.

Mr Do Gooder - let the paying customer decide what they want.

 

[gpollock87]

;

Apparently, no one wants Fearnet HD.

ahemmmmmm! lol

 

[dangue]

And DISH should take a hint here. There are quite a few of us out here who have no need for the higher tier rate packages. They're full of channels noone's watching. What a waist of spectrum, bandwidth, or whatever.

That's why you have the lower tier option. If you're happy with what's in the lower tier, how extra bandwidth is used is irrelevant to you since you're satisfied with what you're getting. People sub to the higher tiers because they want more than what's in the basic tiers. Those tiers must make Dish money or they wouldn't offer them. Ergo, not a waste of bandwidth.

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

 

[dangue]

ahemmmmmm! lol

I was waiting for that fearnet jab to provoke a response. Lol

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

 

[Mr Tony]

ahemmmmmm! lol

hairball?

 

[dare2be]

hairball?

Fearball.

 

[kcburk]

That's why you have the lower tier option. If you're happy with what's in the lower tier, how extra bandwidth is used is irrelevant to you since you're satisfied with what you're getting. People sub to the higher tiers because they want more than what's in the basic tiers. Those tiers must make Dish money or they wouldn't offer them. Ergo, not a waste of bandwidth.

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

I appreciate your point, but I submit that if the channels aren't a waste of bandwidth then they should be able to stand on their own. If the market wants them and market drives content then they shouldn't need to be subsidized by the gov um I mean conglomerates. Bail outs aren't a good idea in government and they aren't a good idea in business. Let them stand or fall based on what the market wants. If they are such great channels why do they have to continually be propped up?

 

[dare2be]

If the channels were owned on their own, they would be allowed to stand on their own. And regular market forces would apply.

 

[gpollock87]

hairball?

yes lol

 

[rajmarie]

And DISH should take a hint here. There are quite a few of us out here who have no need for the higher tier rate packages. They're full of channels noone's watching. What a waist of spectrum, bandwidth, or whatever.

I have at 200 & there are quite a few channels in this pack that my family enjoy. Obviously not all the 80 channels that the package have over at 120. Heck there are couple of channels in at 250 that my family will like also but the bill will be higher which is not good ATM.

 

[kcburk]

I have at 200 & there are quite a few channels in this pack that my family enjoy. Obviously not all the 80 channels that the package have over at 120. Heck there are couple of channels in at 250 that my family will like also but the bill will be higher which is not good ATM.

There are a few channels that I would like, but I'm not willing to fork over another $10 to $20 per month for them. But there are dozens on the AT120 that are wasted space on my Guide. My point is that channels that ppl want to watch should be the channels ppl are allowed to choose. The choice is made for me by some nameless CEO (or in this case Charlie). If the channels are worth it and you as a company believe they are worth it put your money where your mouth is and let me pick and choose the channels I and my family want based on what I can afford. I shouldn't be restricted from viewing let's say BBC America because I can't afford to bump up my subscription. If they ever did that and allowed the consumer real power to choose (or we stood up and demanded the right to choose) then a lot of these niche channels would disappear. It's alot like the new Vonage commercial where the "thieves" (media service providers) are robbing this family blind and the family members say, "Thank you" as they hand over their possessions. With each bill we pay to a company that doesn't allow us real choice we are relinquishing our power as consumers, bending over, taking our spanking, and saying, "Thank you sir! May I have another!?"

 

[rapidturtle]

Mr Do Gooder - let the paying customer decide what they want.

I would love to decide what channels I want. Let me put my own package together. I don't need 10 religious channels. My kids are grown, so you can keep all of the cartoon channels. I don't need fox news, and CNN. One of them will do. Don't need the shopping channels. I don't speak spanish, so you can take those off. I don't listen to music on my T.V., so I don't need the music channels. Just sitting here and going through the guide, I could do just fine with about 20-25 channels. That includes my major network locals.