That's exactly what I'm proposing.
Aren't you tired of someone telling you, "I know you want SYFY, but what you REALLY need is 20 CD channels you're never gonna tune in! Now, THAT'S value!"
Last edited:
Dish and Disney
- Thread starter bluegras
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 62
- Views 8K
That's exactly what I'm proposing.
Aren't you tired of someone telling you, "I know you want SYFY, but what you REALLY need is 20 CD channels you're never gonna tune in! Now, THAT'S value!"
You people just don't get it. If you think it's solely Dish making the decisions on how to structure their packages, or if you think that removing those 10 religious channels and shopping channels will somehow save you money (quite the opposite), then well, think again.
While Dish is given, forced or paid to take certain channels it is also in their interest to have lots of channels in the channel count so they can say we offer 120, 200 or 250 channels. That way when their packages are compared to other providers Dish can claim they have more or at least the same number of channels in their packages.
People also do the math the Americas 120 package is only $.30 a month per channels. If you cut it down the 20 - 30 channels that are actually worth watching the cost would closer to a $1.00.
I almost hope it does go to what everyone is crying for. Then maybe they will see that it can't work that way. There will be some niche channel that you love that will no longer be in existance because ot enough people want to watch it. You end up having fewer channels and end up paying the same amount of money. I don't think anyone realizes how nice they actually have it right now.
I'd like to see the complainers actually work for a TV provider and see what it takes to make things work. There is no way they make all of you happy.
I'd like to see the complainers actually work for a TV provider and see what it takes to make things work. There is no way they make all of you happy.
I don't know that it'll save me money. And never said that it would. I would be willing to pay $1 or $2 per channel for channels I actually watch. I do now in all reality and likely more because I never watch many of the channels on my guide. My point is CHOICE. And I have no idea how the whole system works. What I do know is that it isn't set up to work for the customer. It is set up to work for the corporations. We have bought into the idea that a SAM'S CLUB membership works for all types of business. But even at SAM'S I can purchase what I want or need even if I have to buy enough for a lifetime. I will eventually use it or give it away. I don't have that option with pay TV. Those who own the channels and those who deliver (dare I say) the service have lost touch. The customer is no longer always right. The customer is to be exploited. If I can afford let's say $50 per month but I have the option of AT120 and the myriad channels but there are channels to which I don't have access because of tiered packages that cost too much, or I can choose 15 to 25 channels I and my family will actually watch of all the channels offered by the provider (whomever that may be), I'd rather pick the 15 or 25 and have the option to choose.
Well if the TV providers can find a way to give the consumer the exact channels they want and still manage to make enough profit then maybe they will and everyone can be happy. If the TV providers can not make enough profit then it will never happen. There is no point in giving the customer what they want if you can't profit from it. It's a buisiness and they need to profit to survive. I kow that everyone understands that to a certain degree but sometimes it makes me wonder.
Yes, but because of the multiple channel ownership of the media conglomerates, they would unlikely offer that kind of choice. For instance, they might not let you choose one of their channels (say, Disney channel) without also paying for the ESPNs, ABC Family, Hallmark, etc. That is the main driving force behind the creation of the programming packages to begin with...to appease the content providers. The first step in getting real choice in programming is to repeal the 1996 Telecom Act and limit channel ownership an entity can own/control.
So, we are in effect propping up channels that cannot survive in the real market place. That's what I've been saying.
True. But if we would vote with our dollars by keeping them in our pockets, they certainly wouldn't be making a profit then until they hear our voice and provide the service we demand instead of pushing packages we don't want or need.
The way the packages are set up now, from customer stand point and business side is probably the best. There are some channels I don't use and some you don't. They all get to be seen.
I actually don't see much of a problem with the way it is. There are a lot of channels I want to watch and I have no problem paying to see them. If I didn't want to pay for them then I would drop to a lower package. It's that simple.
Yes, but it also sounds like you're saying that Dish and Direct are the ones who hold the cards in making the change in the situation. For the most part, they don't.
They are the ones with whom we (customers) deal. If we put the pressure on them, then they will have no choice but to put the pressure on the owners.
Last I heard they had a fist fight in the negotiation room and were scheduling a rematch on WWE.
the answer hasnt changed since earlier in the thread...As scott pointed out
I talked to both friends at DISH and ESPN (I live down the street from ESPN) and am told that talks are worse now then they ever have been.
Asking for an update every week is just a waste of time. Assume there is no update unless Scott or someone else with connections on the inside posts an update.
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
I'll let Booker T give ya a better answer than I can..............................
[youtube]arnHCoxwnnQ[/youtube]
Well if they are this bad for DISNEY channels I can only imagine how bad they will be when the Espn contract comes up for renewal.
