HUH Sky angel is a seperate service
Yea but are not 260=TBN, 261-EWTN, 262-ANGEL, & 263-DYSTR part of their service.
HUH Sky angel is a seperate service
If LOGO wants to PAY as much as those channels PAY Im sure Charlie will have no trouble adding LOGOYea but are not 260=TBN, 261-EWTN, 262-ANGEL, & 263-DYSTR part of their service.
I think the problem is people dont want to PAY for that channel..hiding it is irrelavant
If that were true (its not) the channel would have been added a looong time agoI, for one, WOULD be willing to pay for it. And I think the (1 in 10, look it up) gay Dish Network subscribers would most likely be willing to pay for it too. And the fact that it is an advertiser supported channel would mean it wouldn't cost Dish Network as much to carry as you think. And I would just like to say, we don't hate you, so don't hate us.
Sounds a like a racist comment to me. "OMG if I watch LOGO I might end up gay or black". For your sake maybe both would suit you just fine!Now there's a great comment Juan.
Why do providers "waste" multiple channel slots on the rediculous black and gospel channels, huh? They're much more rediculous than Logo.
And Scott (don't want to correct the master!!) - Logo shows NOTHING that is on MTV or VH1. It's a blend of their own programming, some funny comedy shows, and movies.
If you're gay - it's actually a funny / interesting blend of stuff.
And, if I was black - I probably would watch more of those gospel channels, but, i'm not - so I don't. Just as those that aren't gay - wouldn't watch Logo.
FIOS TV carries both Logo and here! - although here! is a $7.95 full-time channel - something DISH never did when they had them as a weak $3.95 PPV station.
DISH worries too much about their bible-thumping small-town customers that might get upset by the addition of a current-times channel. That's all.
You are taking Claude's comments out of context. He said that he hoped that they didn't add it because he has had several customers that changed from D* to E* to get away from it. If they left E* because it was added there then it would hurt his bottom line.
Expressing a statement like Claude did might not be good for his bottom line, unless it is a calculated risk to align himself with the intolerants...which actually might be a good risk, since there seems to be so many of them...as evidenced by this thread...
I'm just not sure that I'd do business with him now. I'll have to think on this a bit more...
I, for one, WOULD be willing to pay for it. And I think the (1 in 10, look it up) gay Dish Network subscribers would most likely be willing to pay for it too. And the fact that it is an advertiser supported channel would mean it wouldn't cost Dish Network as much to carry as you think. And I would just like to say, we don't hate you, so don't hate us.
I, for one, WOULD be willing to pay for it.
This is why I LOVE the idea of IPTV, the ability for people to get ANY channel they want over an internet connection to their TV. It would allow these small channels be carried by these big providers without eating up valuable satellite spectrum.I'd pay for it too. And then again Dish could make it a subscriber request only channel, so only those that asked for it, received it. I think the problem there might be that Viacom probably would have in it's agreement that it needs to be in such and such tier and included automatically in that tier and above. After all Viacom want's to be able to count all households receiving, not all households watching.
If you dont want a channel coming into your house, do like I do and BLOCK IT. Others can not and should not stop living because some folks do not like a channel for its content.
Hell if it were not for freedom of choice and expression then there wouldnt be no America today.
Why do gay people hate to be stereotyped as "gay" but then demand some stupid channel that does just that?
Same thing with black people and BET. Wait, do black people watch BET?
Educate yourself to this reality.