Dominion/Sky Angel Gives Support to a la Carte

[James Long]

SA is trying to spread the gospel E* and D* are trying to make money period. Please don't spiritualize what is simply a business that may or may not want to force out a non-profit christian organization that really does want to spread the gospel.

I won't give you a fact by fact rebuttal as it would be worthless to you. Sky Angel made the decision to spiritualize their BUSINESS operation. Sky Angel made the decision to enforce their block on the spread of the Gospel by suing E*. Don't mistake Sky Angel for anything more than it is - a business.

to hope for the failure of sky angel is just downright wrong and jaded.

Try reading. I didn't hope for their failure. Try to stick to the truth, ok? I just believe that they should actually comply with the agreements they made with the FCC when they applied for satellite spectum and NEVER AGAIN sue to have a religious broadcast turned off.

JL

 

[JeffH]

If you don't know please hold off on the wild accusations that E* is not fully in compliance. Thanks.

I have read your posts here and at dbstalk in regard to Sky Angel; you (JL) are the master of "wild accusations"

"Are you using D* as an abbreviation for the Dominion? If so, please stop now. D* is used for DirecTV. E* is EchoStar (DishNetwork) and V* is Voom."

Sorry for this one, I know better . But anyone who read the full context of my post knew who I was referring to.

This will be my final post on this thread.

A Sky Angel supporter
JeffH

 

[rcwilcox]

I won't give you a fact by fact rebuttal as it would be worthless to you. Sky Angel made the decision to spiritualize their BUSINESS operation. Sky Angel made the decision to enforce their block on the spread of the Gospel by suing E*. Don't mistake Sky Angel for anything more than it is - a business.


JL

Interesting you think SA is trying to "block the spread of the gospel" when those two channels on E* claimed to be family not religious programming" so they obviously didn't consider themselves gospel spreading tools.

I am sorry we don't see this the same way. Yes SA has to be business like in some ways as they have many employees that depend on SA plus for many of their subscribers this is all the TV they have. If E* were to take away their "business" many employees, and small ministries that can only exist in a SA setting, would all suffer. I don't like seeing SA or anybody else sue anybody but I think SA had their back against the wall. I was really hoping that SA and E* could reach some sort of more amiable agreement and I hope that still will happen, but again E* signed a contract.

 

[TNGTony]

I am a life-long subscriber to SA*. I see SA* as preaching to the choir. People who have Sky Angel or are likely to get SA* are already Christians.

Daystar, FamilyNet and Educating everyone were all ministries. Eventhough they denied it on one hand, they acknowledge it in their mission statemets. SA* preventing a major distributor from broadcasting ministry channels to 10 MILLION households is countrer to the whole idea of spreading the gospel.

Now having said that. I cannot fault SA* for demanding Dish follow the contract terms. I only have issue with the restrictive contract itself! If the terms were that there could be no channel duplication, I could live with that.

BTW, everyone please remember keep messages on point and leave personal jabs at the door.

Thanks.

See ya
Tony

 

[James Long]

you (JL) are the master of "wild accusations"

I'm sorry you see it that way. I'm also sorry that you can't back up your baseless claim that E* is not in full compliance.

But mostly I'm sorry that SkyAngel decided to get mixed up in a legal issue, and we are discussing the merits and bad effects of their court presentations instead of the merits of their satellite presentations. SkyAngel cannot sue it's way into people's homes. The lawsuit in no way progresses their mission statement, and in many way contradicts it. But that - as I said before - is another issue for other threads.

If SkyAngel would offere THEIR OWN programming a la carte I would probably subscribe. But $11.95 is too much to pay for many channels I would not watch. It is the same argument made by people wanting no sports or "family only" programming. And there is a certain amount of arrogance in SkyAngel expecting other services to offer their channels a la carte while refusing to offer their own in that manner.

JL