Income from Shopping Channels

[GaryPen]

With all this worry about the Viacom negotiations, and whether it will cost us subscribers more money, I got to thinking... Why can D offer similar programming for the same or less than E, with all of the Viacom channels intact? Actually, TCPw/locals has much more than AT120w/locals for $2 more.(It's basically AT180 w/o the Encore Pack)

Getting to the point, D seems to only have a fraction of E's 13 shopping channels. Not only is it a huge waste of bandwidth, but I'm sure those channels pay E to to be there. (Why alse are they there?) With all that extra income, shouldn't our rates be lower than D's for comparable programming?

I wonder just how much income is derived from these channels? Any ideas? I also wonder how much less compression we'd see on the other channels without them?

 

[Juan]

With all this worry about the Viacom negotiations, and whether it will cost us subscribers more money, I got to thinking... Why can D offer similar programming for the same or less than E, with all of the Viacom channels intact? Actually, TCPw/locals has much more than AT120w/locals for $2 more.(It's basically AT180 w/o the Encore Pack)

Getting to the point, D seems to only have a fraction of E's 13 shopping channels. Not only is it a huge waste of bandwidth, but I'm sure those channels pay E to to be there. (Why alse are they there?) With all that extra income, shouldn't our rates be lower than D's for comparable programming?

I wonder just how much income is derived from these channels? Any ideas? I also wonder how much less compression we'd see on the other channels without them?

I f your that concerned why dont you subscribe to d* !!!
by the way E* makes money while D* loses money

 

[Neutron]

If E* is making so much more money profit wise then why the fighting with Viacom? And, why the rate increase last month?

 

[GaryPen]

I f your that concerned why dont you subscribe to d* !!!
by the way E* makes money while D* loses money

The first part of your answer had me going for a second. I'm glad you're only kidding, and just demonstrating how stupid that knee-jerk homer nonsense sounds.

The second part is very interesting. I didn't know that. I was under the impression that E was the one losing money until recently, while D was profitable for a while now. If what you say is correct, then it answers my question about price comparisons.

I still wonder how much income is derived from the shopping channels?

If E* is making so much more money profit wise then why the fighting with Viacom? And, why the rate increase last month?

That is a VERY good question, and one of the reasons I started this thread.

 

[Juan]

The NFL package alone would lead me to believe D* is bleeding red ink

 

[Juan]

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:...gy/hughes.reut/+directv+profit&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 I believe the "profit" from a year ago was because of the merger break up fee charlie paid d*

 

[MacKenzieIII]

an intresting thread, and while I agree I would like to see E* rate at simmilar levels to cable and D*.

All things being equal I like the idea of a company that is making money. Because they have more of an insentive to keep things going and do a good job. Where a company that is loosing money can always close up shop, or be an ass to their customers and they and go anywhere but up.

It is a simplification but I think E*s profitablity is actually a plus for them in my book.